Columiita Winibtv^itp 





Class 
Book., 



COEaaGKr OEPosm 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF FREE 
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES 

AS ILLUSTRATED BY 
CONNECTICUT AND MICHIGAN 



BY 

ARTHUR RAYMOND MEAD, Ph.D. 



TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION, NO. 91 



PUBLISHED BY 

Ktsit\)tvi College, Columbia iHniberffitp 

NEW YORK CITY 
1918 






\^^ 



%o^ 



Copyright, 1918, by 
Arthur Raymond Mead 



g)ci.Ar>ir)33 3 



A. 



^« \ 



DEDICATED 
TO THE 

FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
OF AMERICA 



INTRODUCTION 

The typical public school of the United States is a free school. 
It is free in that it charges no tuition fees to resident pupils. 
However, it is a matter of common knowledge that in an earlier 
period tuition was one of the means of school support. This was 
certainly true of all states east of the Mississippi River, except 
Maine and Wisconsin, and actually if not legally may have been 
true of them also. A few states west of the Mississippi used 
tuition as a means of school support. Striking examples are 
Iowa, California, and Texas. 

As one reviews the educational legislation of the different 
states, it becomes evident that in the period of 1840-1870 many 
laws were enacted having as their aim the attainment of schools 
free from tuition as a means of support. It is also evident that 
from an early period, children of the poor were not required to 
pay such fees. To make schools free meant to exempt all chil- 
dren from such charges, and to support the schools entirely by 
other means, largely by taxation upon property. Laws which 
aimed to secure this condition were enacted in certain states, as 
follows: Delaware, 1829; Pennsylvania, 1834, 1848, 1868; Louisi- 
ana, 1847; Indiana, 1852; Ohio, 1853; Texas, 1854; Iowa, 1858; 
West Virginia, 1863; Vermont, 1864; New York and California, 
1867; Michigan, 1869; Connecticut, 1868-1870, and New Jersey, 
1871. In some cases, the laws left the matter entirely to local 
option, as for example the law of 1834 in Pennsylvania. In 
others, no local choice was given. It is also probable that much 
of the earlier legislation of this type was largely unrealized in 
actual practice, but the later laws were backed by sufficient 
sentiment and finances to make the schools practically free. 

This development of free schools in the last century consisted 
not only of changes in the schools themselves, but also of changes 
in public opinion about the function, the organization, and the 
administration of the public school. Since our schools depend 
upon public opinion, the investigation of this evolution to ascer- 
tain its causes, tendencies, and results, may help us to under- 
stand better the present problems of education in our democracy. 



vi The Development of Free Schools 

The task of studying intensively this movement in all states 
concerned is so enormous in extent that it was found impossible 
of accomplishment except by years of research and study. After 
a brief preliminary survey of the general movement, it was found 
desirable to select one or more states and study their history to 
ascertain how they illustrate this educational evolution. It 
was thought desirable, also, that the states selected should have 
a population very largely of the same origin; that at least one 
of the states should illustrate this development from colonial 
times; and that the vexing problems involved in religious and 
sectarian controversies about the public schools should not be 
present to such a degree as to unduly complicate and obscure 
the main issues. The two states of Connecticut and Michigan 
met these conditions, and they were selected for study. 

Certain terms used in this study need definition. Tuition, 
rate-bill, pauper school and poor school, rate-bill school, rate, 
and free school, are terms which may be confused. Tuition 
meant the same as it does to-day, money paid by parents, or 
guardians, of pupils for schooling. Rate-bill was a term used 
somewhat carelessly, but usually meant a tuition bill with the 
added feature that if the parents of children were indigent, such 
parents would be exempted from payment of the tuition fees. 
This bill was levied upon and collected directly from individuals, 
but could be collected, if necessary, by seizure and sale of prop- 
erty. Like tuition, a rate-bill was usually charged in proportion 
to the number of children in attendance and the total number of 
days of school attended. Pauper school and poor school origi- 
nally meant schools attended only by children of the poor. In 
time, these terms came to be applied to a public school using 
rate-bills as a means of support, if the attendance was composed 
largely of children unable to attend private schools. A rate-bill 
school was a public school using rate-bills as a means of support. 
A rate, in contrast with a rate-bill, was what we call a property 
tax. A free school was one supported entirely without tuition, 
or rate-bills. It might be public or private, and might be sup- 
ported by an endowment, or by taxation and other means of 
public support. As used in this study, it means a public school 
supported entirely by taxation and other means of public main- 
tenance. 

The sources from which the material for this study has been 



Introduction vii 

drawn are indicated in the Appendices. The chief sources are 
reports of the state departments of education, school laws, and 
educational journals The writer is under obligation to Bryson 
Library of Teachers College, Hartford Public Library, Library 
of the University of Michigan, and the United States Bureau of 
Education for facilities furnished. His chief obligation is to 
Dr. Paul Monroe, who suggested the study and who has given 
much help in directing it. 



CONTENTS 

PAOB 

Introduction v 

PART I. CONNECTICUT 

Colonial Beginnings in Connecticut 1 

General Social Changes, About 1780-1870 10 

Some Legislative and Administrative Changes in Education, 

About 1780-1870 12 

Educational Finance, 1780-1870 18 

School Fund, Town Deposit Fund, Local Funds, Town Tax, 
Society Tax, District Tax, Tuition and Rate-bills, Minor 
Sources 
Development of Free Schools 42 

A. Up to 1850 

B. From 1850 to 1856 

C. From 1856 to 1870 

D. Extensions of Free School Principle since 1870 

E. Immediate Results of Free School Laws and Free School Cam- 

paign 

PART II. MICHIGAN 

General Soctal Changes 77 

SomeLegislative AND Administrative Changes, 1785-1870 ... 79 
Educational Conditions under the Government of the North- 
west Territory, 1785-1805 81 

Free School Development while Michigan Was A Territory . . 85 
Beginnings of Free Schools and Free School Legislation under 

the First Constitution 87 

Free School Growth under Second Constitution and to Two 

MillTax AND Optional Free School Law, 1850-1860 .... 91 

Civil War Period and Abolition of Rate-bills 102 

Extensions AND Constitutional Changes since 1869 124 

PART III. INFLUENCING FACTORS AND SUMMARY 

Population Elements 126 

Influence of Teachers 137 

Industries and Labor Union Movement 145 

Taxpayers 150 

Local Units of School Administration 162 

Educational Finance, Connecticut 155 

Educational Finance, Michigan 156 

ix 



X The Development of Free Schools 

RdLE OF StATK and LoCAL AdMINISTKATIVE OfFICEHB rAQU 

A. Connecticut 163 

B. Michigan 163 

Political Thkouy and Frkk Schools 169 

Financial Panicb and Fukk Schools 174 

Civil War and Fkek Schools 175 

Private Schools and Free Schools 176 

Free Education ah ('harity 181 

Belief in Moral Value op Education 184 

SUMMARY 

Connecticut 185 

Michioan 187 

Causal and Influencing Factors 189 

Results 194 

Some Principles Demonstrated hy the Study 194 

APPENDICES 

General Bihliooraphy 199 

Bibliography on ('onnecticut 200 

Statistical Tahles — Connectuuit 

I. Population and Social Statisti(!a 203 

II. Rate-bills, Districts Using and Supjwrt 204 

III. School Fund Dividends, 1799-1883 204 

IV. Town and District Taxes, Support per Child 206 

V. Teachers' Salaries, 1835-1878 206 

VI. Use of Rate-bills by Counties 207 

VII. Use of Rate-bills by Towns 207 

VIII. Local Revemie and Districts Levying Tax 208 

IX. Proportion of Public Funds as Contrasted to Local Funds 

in Certain Conununities 208 

Documents — Connecticut 

1. State Board Meinl)er on Pauper Schools 209 

2. Platform of State Teachers' Association, 1868 209 

3. Resolutions of Friends of Universal Education 211 

4. Petition of Hartford Ministerial Association, 1867 . . . 211 
6. Endowed Free Schools 212 

6. Barnard and Boutwell on Rate-bills and Free Schools . . . 213 

7. Philbrick on Rate-bills, 1855 214 

8. Camp on Taxes, Rate-bills and Free Schools 215 

9. Northrop on Rate-bills and Free Schools 216 

10. Free Education as Charity 218 

11. Northrop on Charity in Education 218 

Bibliography on Michigan 219 

Statistical Tables — Michigan 

I. Salaries, Rate-bills, Proportion of Salary in Rate-bills, Gain 

or Loss in Rate-bills, Total Districts and Free Districts . . 220 



Contents xi 

Statistical Tables — Michigan — Concluded paqb 

II. Population and Social Statistics 221 

III. District Tax, Township Tax, Total Income per Child . . 222 

IV. Teachers' Salaries per Month for Certain Years .... 223 
V. School Fund Income, 1839-1880 223 

VI. Attendance in Public and Private Schools 224 

Documents — Michigan 

A. Rate-bill: Teacher's Tuition List 225 

B. Rate-bill and Warrant for Collection 225 

C. Rate-bill: Notice of Assessor's Sale 226 

D. Rate-bill: Collector's Warrant 227 

E. Sectarian Definition of Free Schools 227 

F. Counter-petition of Bishop McCoskry 228 

G. Decision in Kalamazoo High School Case 229 



PART I 
CONNECTICUT 

COLONIAL BEGINNINGS IN CONNECTICUT 

The schools of Connecticut became free in the last half of the 
nineteenth century, but to understand the development of such 
schools it is helpful to consider some conditions of colonial edu- 
cation, and to trace the slow growth of the movement and related 
movements to the time of the enactment of the free school law 
of 1868. The colonial period, from 1634 to 1776, a period of one 
hundred and forty-two years, was a time in which European 
traditions were transplanted, and also gradually modified. Some 
very important social changes occurred in Connecticut during 
this period. The colonists of Connecticut came, for the most 
part, from Massachusetts and were very similar in character and 
antecedents to the people of that colony. At New Haven and 
Hartford, settlements were made which had separate govern- 
ments, and between which a rivalry appeared. The two were 
united under a royal charter in 1665. The government was 
similar, in many respects, to that of Massachusetts. At first, 
the town was the unit of local government. The general control 
was exercised by the "General Court" and governor, under the 
charter and a rather peculiar constitution. The "General 
Court" was an elective body, based upon a limited suffrage, 
having a combination of legislative, executive, and judicial 
powers. Religiously, the Connecticut colonists were Puritans. 
The church and civil government were united in many ways. 
The early pursuits were, of necessity, hunting and agriculture, 
but soon a coastwise trade grew up, and primitive manufactures 
appeared. The times were not peaceful. Indian wars, and the 
European wars of parent nations brought to the settler of Con- 
necticut a share of the common burdens of the period. 

The educational conditions of the colonial period are inter- 
related with church, local and general government, and economic 
conditions. Many of the educational conditions are of slight 

1 



2 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

importance to this study. Administrative conditions such as 
finance and control are very important. They will be considered 
in this chapter. 

A very early record is that of the action of Hartford, 1643. 
This is an action of the town meeting. It records the employ- 
ment of a Mr. Andrews to teach school, and provides that his 
income shall be sixteen pounds. This income is to come from 
tuition. The "townsmen" are authorized to pay the tuition 
of indigent children. In essentials, this is the type of support 
which later caused a school to be classed as a rate-bill school. ' 
Five years later, the town took action "that forty pounds shall 
be paid in the way of a rate to the townsmen for the time being, 
for carrying on the said work" — said work being the keeping 
of a better school. (Barnard, Conn. Rept., 1853, 7) The action 
of the town of Weathersfield, taken March 12, 1658, provided 
that their teacher should receive twenty-five pounds, part of 
which was to be raised by tuition, and the balance by a rate 
levied upon the tax value of the town. (Ibid., 7) 

A short series of town actions show school support and admin- 
istration in New Haven. December 25, 1641, "It is ordered that 
a free school be set up in this town, and our pastor, Mr. Daven- 
port, together with the magistrates shall consider what yearly 
allowance is meet to be given out of the common stock of the 
town, and also what rules and orders are meet to be observed 
in and about the same." In 1644, the town ordered the estab- 
lishment of a "free school" to train for "public service in church 
and in commonwealth," (Barnard, Conn. Rept., 1853, 10) 
These two records raise these queries: (1) Are two schools meant, 
or only one and the same school? (2) Did free mean what we 
mean by it to-day — was the school or were the schools really 

» This very early record reads as follows: "That Mr. Andrews should teach 
the children in the school one year next ensuing from the 25th of March, 1643, 
and that he shall have for his pains sixteen pounds; and therefore the Townsmen 
shall go and inquire who will engage themselves to send their children ; and all 
that do so, shall pay for one quarter, at the least, and for more if they do send 
them, after the proportion of twenty shillings the year, and if they go any 
weeks more than an even quarter, they shall pay six pence a week; and if any 
would send their children and are not able to pay for their teaching, they shall 
give notice of it to the Townsmen, and they shall pay it at the Town's charge; 
and Mr. Andrews shall keep the account between the children's schooling and 
himself, and send notice of the times of payments and demand it; and if his 
wages do not come, the Townsmen must collect and pay it; or if the engage- 
ments come not to sixteen pounds, then they shall pay what is wanting at 
the Town's charge." (Conn. Rept., 1853, 6) (Italics not in original.) 



Connecticut 3 

free? No definite answer has been found to either question. In 
1652, the same town employed Mr. James to teach at an income of 
ten pounds from the treasury and the rest from the parents of 
the children. (Ibid., II) In 1657, action of very great importance 
was taken by the court of New Haven colony. It ordered towns 
within its jurisdiction which had no teachers to forthwith secure 
a schoolmaster, and provided that one-third of the salary should 
be paid by a regular rate, and the balance by parents of the 
children.! These examples from New Haven reveal types of 
practices. In 1665, New Haven and Hartford colonies united, 
and the laws were the same for both. The Hartford code of 
1650 became the general law of Connecticut colony. 

The code of 1650 was the work of Roger Ludlow, an attorney, 
who had lived in England and Massachusetts and served as a 
justice in the colony .^ Because of its origin, it is practically a 
duplicate of the Massachusetts law of 1647 with reference to 
schools, and the provisions referring to apprenticeship are copied 
largely from the Massachusetts law of 1642 and from English 
laws. The provisions relating to education are under the cap- 
tions "Children" and "Schools." The selectmen were given 
the duty of enforcing this law, and could call to their help two 
magistrates. Boys and girls were made subject to a period of 
apprenticeship training, or required to be given an education 
"to fit them for higher employments." A general education 
was to be required of all. Every town of fifty families was re- 
quired to employ a teacher of reading and writing, and when 
a town attained to the size of one hundred families, it must also 
"set up a grammar school" to fit young men for the university. 
Neglect to provide such facilities made the town liable to a fine 

1 At a court of elections held at New Haven, March 27, 1657, "It was pro- 
pounded that the court would think of some way of further setting up of 
schools, for the education of the youth in each plantation, for though some do 
take care that way yet some others neglect it, which the court took into con- 
sideration, and seeing that Newhaven hath provided that a schoolmaster be 
maintayned at the townes charge, and Milford hath made provision in a com- 
fortable way, they desire ye other townes should follow their example, and 
therefore did now order, that in every plantation where a school is not already 
set up and maintayned, forthwith endeavors shall be used that a schoolmaster 
be procuried that may attend that work, and what sallary shall be allowed 
unto such schoolemaster for his paines, one third part shall be paid by the town 
in general as other rates, the good education of children being of publique 
concernment, and the other two-thirds by them who have the benefite thereof 
by ye teaching of their children:" (Rec. Col. New Haven, 220) 

' He was sometimes referred to as Robt. Ludlowe. 



4 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

of five pounds, "till they shall perform this order." School 
support was provided in the words "whose wages shall be paid, 
either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the 
inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of 
those who order the prudentials of the town, shall appoint." It 
is clear that tuition is meant in the first part of the sentence, but 
just what the other method was is not very clear. Were the 
selectmen those who "ordered the prudentials of the town"? 
Probably so. What was meant by "way of supply"? Was it 
not possible that these persons might "appoint" to collect more 
tuition, or levy a rate, or pay by an appropriation from the town 
treasury? Many features of this very important law remained 
in the school laws of Connecticut till the free school movement 
began in earnest.^ 

In 1666, a year after the union of the two colonies, the whole 
colony was divided into four counties, viz., Hartford, New Lon- 
don, New Haven, and Fairfield. At a court of election held at 
Hartford, May 9, 1672, grants of land were made to Fairfield 
and New London for grammar schools. The grants were in each 
case six hundred acres, and were to be used "for the benefit of a 
grammer school in the sayd County Townes, and to no other 
use or end whatever." By a similar action, like grants were 
made to New Haven and Hartford for the same purposes. (Conn. 
Col. Rec, II: 176) In 1676 — forty-two years after the begin- 
ning of the colony — the fine for not keeping a Latin grammar 
school was increased to ten pounds. The same year, the colony 
provided that maintenance of the schoolmaster should be by 
taxation — "by way of rate," — but each town might agree to 
raise the salary by some other method. (Conn. Col. Rec, II: 
312) Two years later it was provided that towns of thirty 
famihes "shall have and maintain a school to teach children to 
read and write." {Ibid., Ill: 9) 

In the county of Fairfield, a smaller community called Pa- 
quanake had grown up, and demanded a share of the school money 
of the town of Fairfield, of which it was an outlying community. 
The matter was taken to the General Court and Fairfield was 
authorized to divide its school money as desired by the citizens 
of Paquanake. In a quite true sense, this marks the beginning 

1 Conn. Col. Records, I: 520-521, 554-555. Dexter, History of Education 
in U. S., appendix. Seybolt, Apprenticeship in Colonial New England and 
New York. 



Connecticut 5 

of decentralization in school control from town to parish and 
district. {Ibid., Ill: 8) In 1684, the General Court exempted 
from taxation all property used for the support of schools and 
the ministry. {Ibid., Ill: 158) 

In 1686, a new departure in school support appeared. The 
colony treasury contained a surplus. By court action, this sur- 
plus was to be distributed among the various communities for 
the assistance of grammar schools, or where there were none, to 
"other schools." {Ibid., Ill: 225) 

A rather comprehensive reorganization of the school laws was 
enacted in 1690. The preamble stated that there were "many 
persons unable to read the English tongue." Then it ordered 
that "all parents and masters shall cause their respective children 
and servants, as they are capable, to be taught to read distinctly 
the English tongue." To enforce this order, the grand jury was 
required to visit families suspected of evading the law, such 
visits to be made once a year, and evasions to be reported by the 
jury to the "next county court where the said masters or servants 
shall be fined 20 shillings for each child or servant." The word- 
ing seems a little ambiguous. Probably the fine was levied upon 
the master rather than upon the servant, if by servant is meant 
the equivalent of apprentice. The unique part of the law re- 
ferred to the maintenance of two free schools, one at Hartford, 
and one at New Haven. The masters were to be chosen by the 
magistrates and ministers of the two counties, and given an 
annual salary of sixty pounds. The sixty pounds were to come 
from three sources: (1) thirty pounds from the county treasury; 
(2) part of the balance, or all, from gifts or bequests; (3) any 
remaining balance to be paid by the towns. No mention is made 
of tuition, or anything that could reasonably be interpreted to 
be tuition.^ 

1 "This Court considering the necessity and great advantage of good litera- 
ture, doe order and appoint that there shall be two free schooles kept and 
mayntayned in this Colony, for the teaching of such children as shall come 
there, after they can first read the psalter, to teach such reading, writeing, 
arithmetick, the Lattin and Greek tongues, the one at Hartford, the other at 
New Haven the masters whereof shall be chosen by the magistrates and 
ministers of the said county, and shall be inspected and again displaced by 
them if they see cause, and that each of the said masters shall have annually 
for the same the sum of sixty pounds in the county pay, thirty pounds of it 
to be paid out of the county treasury, the other thirty to be paid in the school 
revenue by perticuler persons, or to be given to that use, so far as it will extend, 
and the rest to be payd by the respective townes of Hartford and New Haven." 
(Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 30-31) 

2 



6 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

At the time of the enactment of this early free school law, 
towns were given permission to keep "the townes schooles in the 
several townes, as distinct from the free school," six months in 
each year. (Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 30-31) In May, 1691, one 
John Burr tried to get the court to extend the free school order 
to the other two county towns, but failed. However, two years 
later, the court did extend the order, but gave each twenty pounds 
instead of thirty pounds. {Ibid., IV: 50, 97) 

In October, 1700, a new law was enacted. The four county 
towns were required to maintain grammar schools, towns of 
seventy families, a reading and writing school "constantly — from 
year to year," and towns having less than seventy families, to 
keep such a school one-half year. The law established a colony 
rate (tax) of forty shillings upon the thousand pounds valuation 
to help support these schools. In towns where this would be 
insufficient, the support was to be increased by income from be- 
quests, if any had been made for school support, "and for want 
thereof, the one half to be paid by the town and the other by the 
children that goe to school unlesse any town agree otherwise." 
(Ihid., IV: 330-332) The two types of school support men- 
tioned, state tax and tuition, were destined to play important 
roles in the later educational history of the state. In May, 
1702, this law was slightly strengthened to insure collection and 
use of the forty-shilling tax. By 1711, it was evident that it 
was no easy task to collect this tax. That year, it was distribu- 
ted to the towns in " bills of credit, two-thirds that sum in money." 
(Ibid., V: 214) Next year, it was ordered that this money 
be distributed to parishes where such existed. In 1754, after 
fifty-four years, due to war expenditures, this tax was reduced to 
ten shillings. In 1766, it was raised to twenty shillings, and a 
year later restored to forty. In 1700, the tax valuation of the 
colony was 395,000 pounds. A forty-shilling tax would produce 
790 pounds, but 800 is probably a fair estimate of the actual in- 
come. This money was re-distributcd to each community in 
the same proportion as it had been collected. 

Reference has been made to the gradual division of the towns 
into parishes. In 1717, "every society or parish" was obhged 
to keep a school, and given power to levy taxes for schools. 
(Ibid., VI: 10) During the first half of the eighteenth century, 
the growth of parishes, or ecclesiastical societies, and the increase 



Connecticut 7 

of powers granted to these local units, were both very rapid. 
Much legislation from 1700 to 1725 concerns this change. In 
1723, the colony treasurer was ordered to distribute the colony 
school money to the parishes. (Ibid., I: 400) Neck and Nahan- 
tic societies of New London asked for full control of their schools, 
and their petition was granted. The West School Society of 
New London was divided into two distinct school societies in 
1743. In 1766, power was given to each society and town "to 
divide themselves into proper and necessary districts for keeping 
their schools, and to alter and regulate the same from time to 
time." (Clews, 105, 108, 109) 

Several bequests for school support were made. An early 
example was the bequest of Kobert Bartlett to the town of New 
London. (Conn. Col. Rec, V: 378) The bequest of Edward 
Hopkins is the most important example. Hopkins, at one time 
governor of the colony, left a portion of his estate in the hands of 
certain trustees "for the breeding up of hopeful youths both at 
the grammar school and the college." Considerable difficulty 
was encountered in administering this part of the Hopkins will, 
but finally the portion left for the aforesaid purpose was divided 
among Hartford, New Haven, Hadley (Massachusetts), and 
Harvard College. Grammar schools developed from the en- 
dowment for the first three named places. Barnard said that 
"these schools under many forms of administration have always 
been maintained — much of the time as free, and always as pub- 
lic schools." (Conn. Kept., 1853, 16) In 1738, a bequest of 
lands was left to Middletown for educational purposes. (Clews, 
104) In 1743, twenty-five acres of land escheating to the colony 
by the death of one intestate were given for the use of a school in 
the parish of Wintonbury. (Clews, 108) 

Another development of school support occurred in 1733-1741. 
A legislative committee had been considering what should be 
done with lands in the western part of the colony, which were 
claimed by other sections of the colony. In 1733, this committee 
recommended that the lands in seven new townships be sold, 
and that the proceeds be set aside forever for the support of the 
schools and the ministry. In the course of time, the lands were 
sold, and the proceeds divided among the school societies and 
towns, to be used for schools. Societies were to be held account- 
able for this money by the towns, and the towns by the General 



8 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Court. In 1761, the proceeds from the sales of lands in Norfolk 
township were used similarly. (Clews, 104f.) 

School support in colonial Connecticut was of many kinds. 
Following is a list of combinations of types of school support 
shown in previous pages, the year indicating the time of record: 

1. Tuition paid by parents, that for indigents paid by town. 

(1643) 

2. Tuition, rate (tax), and use of house and land. (1653) 

3. Appropriation from town treasury. (1641) 

4. Voluntary contributions. (1644) 

5. Tuition and appropriation from town treasury. (1652) 

6. Town rate (tax) and tuition. (1657) 

7. Tuition, or as the townsmen might choose to provide. (1650) 

8. Land grants. (1672) 

9. Rate, or as town might choose to provide. (1767) 

10. Distribution of surplus from colony treasury. (1686) 

11. Colony grants of money, private gifts, and rate (tax). 

(1690) 

12. Colony tax, private gifts, town appropriation, and tuition. 

(1700) 

13. Bequests. 

14. Money from sale of public lands. (1741) 

Tuition, local rate (tax), and colony tax were the most common 
types of school support. Taxation for schools was at first a local 
matter. In 1666, the colony made land grants for schools, and 
in 1700 established the forty-shilling school tax for the whole 
colony. Evidence shows that it was a common practice to exempt 
children of indigent parents from payment of tuition charges, 
and that such tuition was actually paid from the town treas- 
ury. New Haven (1643) is a very early example. Some schools 
seem to have been entirely free. 

The administration of education in Connecticut, from 1634 to 
1776, centers about four units of control. First, the town had 
control of education. Second, as the General Court came into 
existence, it assumed a general control over education. This is 
well shown by the code of 1650 and its later amendments. 
Third, there appeared a unit known as the society, first as the 
ecclesiastical society, and later simply school society. It might 
be co-extensive with a town, it might be a part of a town, or it 



Connecticut 9 

might include parts of two or more towns. The district was the 
smallest local unit of school control. The district and society 
were together recognized by law of, 1766 authorizing societies to 
divide themselves into districts. Essentially, the change in 
control of education was from town and colony to district and 
colony, or, as we would say, it was decentralization. A similar 
change occurred in church government. (Conn. Col. Rec, 1:3; 
VII: 107; VIII: 522; XI: 54; XII-XIII) 

The administrative agencies concerned with education were 
the General Court, the town meeting, the selectmen, the local 
ministers, constables and collectors. As societies and districts de- 
veloped, society and district committees appeared to administer 
the schools. The General Court and town meeting legislated 
about education. The selectmen and other local officials exer- 
cised functions more administrative, and less legislative. Em- 
ploying teachers, determining location of schools, salary, collect- 
ing school money and expending it, are typical functions of the 
local officials. 

The types of school support and the modes of administering 
them, the movement to decentralization, methods of adminis- 
tration of schools, and types of officials are of importance in the 
consideration of the educational changes of the following period 
when schools became actually free. 

All of the machinery of administering education depended 
upon another factor which must be mentioned. This was the 
belief that all persons should have an elementary education of 
some sort, and be trained to some vocation. If the person were 
from the poor, a manual vocation was demanded, while the well- 
to-do deemed the ministry, or teaching, or business as the proper 
vocations for their children. This belief in the need of an ele- 
mentary education was based partly upon religious reasons 
dating from the Protestant Revolution. Lastly, as a result of 
this belief, there was a continual insistence that schools should 
be provided in each and every community in the colony. The 
code of 1650 makes this very explicit. It also appears in the 
colony laws of 1676, 1678, 1690, 1700, 1712, 1714, 1715, 1717, 
and 1750. The belief in the universal need of an elementary 
education, and the demand that school facilities should be sup- 
plied are basic to the free school of to-day. 



GENERAL SOCIAL CHANGES FROM COLONIAL 
PERIOD TO 1870 

From 1776 to 1787, Connecticut was concerned with the war 
with England, and the estabHshment of stable government in 
the state and nation. Connecticut seems to have been very 
loyal to the colonists' cause in the Revolution. Two raids by 
British armies caused sections of the state much suffering. Under 
the Articles of Confederation, the state was burdened with 
import duties levied by other states on Connecticut products, 
had its share of trouble with a depreciated currency, and soon 
saw the necessity of a real national government. The dele- 
gates from Connecticut played a very important role in the Con- 
stitutional Convention in the compromise about representation 
in the national congress. During the War of 1812, the attitude 
of the state brought it only ill-repute, but the part played during 
the Civil War atoned for past mistakes. 

From 1800 to 1870, changes came more rapidly. Intellectually, 
some advancement was made. A few leaders appeared, usually 
teachers, or college administrators. Pubhcations increased. As 
early as 1850, there were forty-six periodicals of all sorts. (U. S. 
Census, 1850) In matters of religion, the division into sects be- 
gun in an earher period continued, and some of the original 
denominations made great increases. The number of churches 
for the different sects, as shown by the census of 1850, was as 
follows: Baptists, 114; Congregational, 252; Episcopal, 101; 
Presbyterian, 17; Catholic, 12; Unitarian, 5; Quakers, 5; Chris- 
tian, 4; Union, 4; miscellaneous, 3. This division of creeds made 
it quite impossible for an agreement upon an apportionment of 
school funds for religious teaching, or upon giving rehgious in- 
struction in public schools. Slavery had practically disappeared 
by 1840. (See Appendix, Table I) The attempt of Miss Crandall 
to establish a school for negroes in Connecticut, her consequent 
ostracism and persecution, show that plenty of anti-negro senti- 
ment yet existed. (See Johnston, Connecticut) In 1850, 90 
per cent, of the state's population had been born in that state. 
This helped to perpetuate many of the old traditions, foibles, 
10 



Connecticut 1 1 

and peculiarities. By 1870, illiteracy centered in the foreign 
element of the population. The percentage of children of school 
age was gradually decreasing, showing that the average size of 
the family was also decreasing. (Table I, Appendix) During 
this period, the industries shifted from a dominance in agricul- 
tural to a dominance in manufacturing. (Ibid.) This increased 
the problems of child labor, truancy, and woman labor, and caused 
a continuous growth of cities. In thirty years (1840-1870), the 
total population increased 73 per cent. This produced a demand 
for school facilities which the income from the School Fund and 
the Town Deposit Fund could not supply. 



SOME LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES 
IN EDUCATION, 1787-1870 

In evolving a school supported without use of rate-bills, the 
financial and administrative conditions of education assumed 
great importance. This being so, the general, legislative and 
administrative conditions will be described, and then the finan- 
cial growth will be outlined. 

Before 1800, seveial changes were made which should be noted. 
The first was the school law of 1784. By this the ''Act for the 
Education and Governing of Children remains the same as in 
the revision of 1702; and the Act for the Appointing, Encourag- 
ing, and Supporting of Schools embodies the various provisions 
which have been enacted since the revision of 1750." County 
towns were each to have a grammar school. Towns and societies 
of seventy families were each to have a reading and writing school. 
The forty-shilling tax upon the thousand pounds valuation was 
retained. Inspection of schools was intrusted to the civil 
authority and to the selectmen. The selectmen, or a special 
connuittee, had the duty of financial management of the schools. 

The movement toward decentralization of control continued. 
In May, 1794, school districts were authorized to tax themselves 
for the construction of schoolhouses, with the sanction of two- 
thirds of the voters. (Laws of Conn., 1796, 375) In 1795, a law 
referred to societies as "school societies." In May, 1798, these 
school societies were granted powers which enabled them to 
organize as school districts. As Barnard said, by this law the 
society and district entirely supplanted the town as units of 
local school control. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 110-111) The society 
was sometimes co-extensive with the town, but more often it 
was not. Having its origin in the earlier church government, it 
now became a hybrid — ecclesiastical and civil. The general law 
was reenacted in 1799, and gives in lengthy detail the powers and 
duties of societies as school units. It continually refers to them 
as school societies. The powers included were as follows: Hold 
society meetings, levy school taxes, divide society into school 
districts, see that each school is supplied with a teacher, appoint 
12 



Connecticut 13 

school committee and school visitors, establish schools of a 
"higher order" than elementary schools, receive and expend 
state school tax, erect schoolhouses, collect and administer other 
types of school support. (Barnard, Am. Jour, of Education, V: 
116-119. Conn. Rept., 1853, 142-145) A provision enacted in 
1801 states that whenever the aggregate "expense of paying and 
boarding instructors in schools in any society . . . shall 
equal or exceed the school monies of the society, provided by the 
State for the same year, such school society shall be considered 
as having fully accounted for such monies, although any one or 
more of the districts in such school society shall not have kept 
a school within the year" . . . "and to draw such school 
society's money for the next year following." (Laws of 1808, 587) 
In fewer words, this was equivalent to saying that if a society 
expended the state school money that was all that was required; 
it would not be of great moment if schools were not maintained. 
This was an extreme form of decentralization. 

Districts continued to secure additional powers. In the law 
of 1799, the districts were given power to levy taxes for erection 
of schoolhouses. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 145) In the statutes of 
Connecticut for 1835, the powers of districts are enumerated 
and are very similar to those of societies in the law of 1801. In 
1839, the district was made a body corporate, and some other 
powers added to those listed in the law of 1835. (Laws, 1835, 
460-467. Laws, 1839, 304) By 1801, the society had become 
one of the local units of school control, and by this law of 1839, 
the small district became the unit of school administration. In 
1845, there were about 1,600 districts, covering 4,900 square 
miles, or the average size of a district was three square miles. 
This unit was very small in area, but had powers that overlapped 
those of the society. The town had very little power over schools. 
By the school laws in force in 1853, the district still retained the 
same powers. That year there were 1,642 districts. (Conn. 
Rept., 1853, Appendix, 8-11, 49) 

In 1853, there were 217 school societies. Thirty-one of these 
had boundaries co-extensive with the towns in which they were 
situated, 131 included but parts of the towns in which they were 
located, and 55 included two or more towns. The law of 1853 
defines the school society as follows: 



14 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

"Every school society, established as such by the general assembly, and 
the inhabitants living within the limits of any ecclesiastical society, incor- 
porated with local limits, or such proportions of the same as have not been 
specially incorporated, shall constitute a school society, and as such shall be 
a body corporate. ..." 

There were 148 towns in Connecticut in 1853. Their educational 
functions were restricted to those described under ''An Act con- 
cerning Domestic Relations" which placed incorrigible children, 
and matters of regulation of child labor, in the control of the town. 
Selectmen had power to place such children out as apprentices. 
This peculiar arrangement of local units of school control 
continued until 185G when school societies were abolished, and 
their functions given over to towns and districts in towns. 
Union school districts were exempted from town control. In 
1856, there were 153 towns, 222 societies, and 1,626 districts. 
Thus the law abolishing societies was one of simplification, and 
as far as the powers were returned to the towns, one of centrali- 
zation. In fact, most of the powers of school administration 
were left in the districts, but they now became districts in towns 
instead of districts in societies. In 1867, a consoUdation law 
for towns was enacted which read as follows: 

"Every town in this State may at any annual meeting, assume and hence- 
forth maintain control of the common schools within its limits . . . ; 
and for this purpose every town shall constitute a Union school district, 
having all the powers and duties of a school district as now constituted by 
law ..." 

This provided a way for the gradual elimination of small districts, 
but it had little influence. Actual administration of schools by 
the towns did not begin again until the decade of 1890-1900. 
(See Willson, Toivn Management of Schools in Connecticut) 

Reference has been made to union school districts. They had 
their origin in urban locaHties and manufacturing centers which 
demanded more and more local self-government. At first, 
special laws granted these communities powers of municipalities. 
Then general laws met their demands. They also demanded 
more control over their schools. In 1839, Hartford, New Haven, 
and Norwich, actuated by mechanics associations, petitioned that 
power be granted the districts to tax themselves, and it was al- 
lowed to these three communities. (Brown, Middle Schools, 315) 
In 1841, a general law provided that ''two or more adjoining dis- 



Connecticut 15 

tricts might associate together and form a union district with 
power to maintain a union school, to be kept for the benefit of 
the older and more advanced children in such district." (Conn. 
Rept., 1872, III) The law abolishing societies exempted such 
districts. The same privilege was extended to towns by the 
law of 1867, described above. By 1870, local school control 
was exercised by towns, districts, and union districts. 

Thus far, changes have been noted in local educational admin- 
istration. Some should be considered that refer to state admin- 
istration. In 1784, the state was levying a tax of forty shillings 
on the thousand pounds, for schools. This was distributed to 
schools through towns and societies, and later through districts 
and societies, and finally through districts. The state also de- 
manded that all towns and societies of seventy families maintain 
reading and writing schools. The state retained the general law 
regulating apprenticeship and control of the poor. 

Growing out of the sale of the lands in the Western Reserve, 
the School Fund was established in 1795, the first of its kind in 
the United States, and one destined to have much influence in 
the educational development of Connecticut. The state tax 
continued until 1821, when it was abolished, and the income from 
the fund was supposed to take its place. When the United States 
distributed the surplus revenue in 1836-1837, Connecticut 
placed its share in the hands of the towns, and required that a 
part of the income, later all of the income, should be used for 
school support. 

In 1837, the state began for the first time to require school 
visitors to make annual reports to the society committee about 
the conditions of the schools. About the same time, the legis- 
lature made an investigation of the schools, which revealed 
many of their weaknesses. In 1838, the Board of Commissioners 
of Common Schools was created, largely as the result of the inves- 
tigation and the work of Henry Barnard. This board was com- 
posed of the governor, commissioner of the school fund, and eight 
other persons appointed annually by the governor, one from 
each county. The board was authorized to employ a secretary 
at a salary of three dollars per day who should be the executive 
officer of the board, and who should spend most of his time arous- 
ing the people to the needs of the schools and advising locali- 
ties as to changes needed in their schools. For the first time 



16 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

societies were required to make an annual report to the state of 
the condition of the schools, the reports being made to the new 
board. Henry Barnard was chosen as the first secretary of the 
board. 

Under this law, Barnard began his career as an educational 
official in Connecticut. In spite of a great tendency to indiffer- 
ence and conservatism, he secured the passage of a law to better 
schools. His activity and the changes proposed seemed too radi- 
cal, and in 1842 the board and the office of secretary were abol- 
ished. No official was provided to take over these duties until 
1845, when a new law made the School Fund commissioner ex- 
officio superintendent of common schools. Accordingly, Seth 
P. Beers began to give some attention to the work begun by Bar- 
nard. (Conn. Kept., 1846, 13, 16; 1872, III) In 1848, the legis- 
lature directed the superintendent "to employ suitable persons to 
hold, at not more than sixteen convenient places in the different 
counties of the State, . . . schools for teachers not exceed- 
ing one week each ..." (Conn. Rept., 1849, 30) In 
June, 1849, a new law created the combination office of principal 
of the normal school and superintendent of common schools. 
(Ibid., 1850, 83) Henry Barnard was elected to this position. 
The report issued by Barnard in 1851 reveals a very comprehen- 
sive plan for educational betterment. On January 1, 1855, 
Barnard resigned and was succeeded by John D. Philbrick. 
Philbrick took an active part in the movement for improvement, 
but left the work January 6, 1857, and was followed by David 
N. Camp who held the office until 1865. During the administra- 
tion of Philbrick, some of the improvements previously advocated 
were enacted into law by the inclusive school code of 1856. 
Camp was active and earnest in the work of the office. In July, 
1865, the legislature created a state board of education com- 
posed of the governor, lieutenant-governor, and four other 
persons to be selected by the legislature, one from each congres- 
sional district in the state. This new board of education had 
all the powers of the old board of commissioners of common 
schools and some in addition. It was authorized to employ a 
secretary whose duties should be the same as those of the super- 
intendent of common schools. (Conn. Rept., 1860-1867, 153-154) 
At the first meeting of the board the combination office of prin- 
cipal of the normal school and superintendent was divided. 



Connecticut 17 

Mr. Camp was made principal and Daniel C. Oilman, secretary. 
Though Mr. Oilman held this office but one year, his report and 
his work were of considerable value to the state. In January, 
1867, he was followed by the Rev. Birdsley Orant Northrop, who 
continued in office until 1883, and who was the successful leader 
of the campaign to abolish rate-bills. 

While Philbrick was superintendent he employed three per- 
sons to travel throughout the state and lecture and advise on 
educational questions. Reaching almost every society in the 
state, their work had considerable influence. 

The state managed the School Fund as follows: (1) it was 
under the care of the original legislative committee that negotiated 
the sale of the lands of the Western Reserve; (2) in 1800, a 
board of four managers was created for this purpose; (3) due to 
some evidences of inefficient management, the entire control of 
the School Fund was placed in the hands of a commissioner of 
the School Fund in 1810. This office continued during the entire 
period in consideration. Part of the time, an assistant com- 
missioner helped with the work. Under this type of manage- 
ment, Mr. Hillhouse, the first commissioner, converted the 
fund into a growing, productive source of school support. 

Some occasional laws referring to Yale College and those 
about the State Normal School complete the most important 
changes in the state educational administration during the years 
1800-1870. Until 1865-1870, the state had assumed but very 
slight control over education. Penalties could be imposed for 
non-performance of duty by local officers, but records of such 
punishment are rare. Local control granted by state laws was 
predominant. 



FINANCIAL CONDITIONS CONCERNED WITH 
EDUCATION, 1780-1870 

The support of public schools during this period was derived 
from the following sources: (1) the State School Fund; (2) the 
Town Deposit Fund; (3) local funds; (4) the town tax; (5) taxa- 
tion by societies; (6) district taxation; (7) tuition and rate-bills;, 
(8) various minor and relatively unimportant sources. At the 
beginning of this period the state levied a tax of forty shillings 
on the thousand pounds valuation for school support. Some com- 
munities had local funds, the income of which helped in school 
maintenance. Towns and societies could levy school taxes. By 
1794, the school district began to secure taxing powers. The 
partial support of schools by tuition charges was more or less a 
matter of custom. 

The State School Fund 

The most important financial change, immediately following 
the Revolution, was the establishment of the School Fund, the 
first of its kind in the United States. Under charter grants, 
Connecticut claimed land that was included within the present 
boundaries of other states. When the original states ceded their 
claims to western lands to the United States government, Connec- 
ticut did likewise but made a reservation of land in what is now 
northeastern Ohio. About 500,000 acres of this land were given 
by Connecticut to citizens of the state who suffered from British 
raids during the Revolution. The remainder, about 3,300,000 
acres, was sold to fifty persons for sums varying from $1,683 to 
$168,185, the total amounting to $1,200,000. 

It was first proposed to use this money to form a permanent 
endowment for the support of the clergy; later, to support the 
clergy and the schools. The legislative and pubHc discussions 
about the disposal of this money revealed a very strong tendency 
against the use of public funds to support the ministry. By act 
of the May session, 1795, this sum was set aside "and the interest 
arising therefrom shall be, and hereby is appropriated to the 
support of schools. ..." It was further provided that 
18 



Connecticut 19 

if a society by a two-thirds vote of its members asked to use the 
money for support of the church, the legislature had power to 
grant the petition of such society. The distribution of the inter- 
est was to be to the societies *'in their capacity of school societies, 
according to the list of polls and rateable estate of such societies 
respectively," that is, upon a tax valuation basis. (Barnard, 
Am. Jour. Education, 6: 367. Also Conn. Rept., 1853, 55-109) 

The following changes were made in 1799: (1) The school 
committee of each society was required to certify to the state 
that they had maintained schools according to the law and that 
the "monies drawn from the public treasury by said society 
for said year, appropriated to schooling, have been faithfully 
applied and expended in paying and boarding instructors"; (2) 
in case of misuse of this money, the state controller was required 
to recover the money by suit at law; (3) a penalty of sixty dollars 
could be levied on any society that issued a false certificate of 
legal school conditions; (4) societies could establish ''schools of 
higher order" (Latin grammar schools) and could use this money 
to help support them. 

The interest accumulated until March, 1799, when the first 
dividend of $60,403.78 was distributed to the school societies. 
In March, 1800, the dividend was $23,651. The total population 
of the state was 251,002, and if 20 per cent, were of school age, 
the money would have equalled about one dollar per child. A 
school of thirty children would have received thirty dollars from 
this income and money from the state tax. Together, these 
sums would maintain a school several months, without taxes or 
tuition, if wages were as low as when we first get records of them. 

The general plans of managing the State School Fund have 
been described. Before Mr. Hillhouse became commissioner of 
the School Fund, in 1810, a total of $456,757.44, or an average of 
$35,135.18 per annum, had been distributed among the school 
societies. During the fifteen years of the administration of Mr. 
Hillhouse, the annual dividend averaged $52,061.35, and the 
capital was augmented to $1,719,434.24. The loans of the capital 
were placed upon a safe basis, and many loans of questionable 
nature made before his term began were converted into sound 
investments. (Am. Jour. Education, 6: 325-366; 421-242. 
Also, Conn, Rept., 1853, 146) In 1810 the total population was 
262,042, and in 1820 the school population was 30.59 per cent, of 



20 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

the total population. (Table I, Appendix) If the school popu- 
lation consisted of but 20 per cent, of the total population in 1810, 
there would have been 52,408 children of school age. Again, 
the pro rata amount per child would have been about the same 
as in 1800, and this income with the state school tax would make 
practically unnecessary any local school tax. Yet it is possible 
that these two sources were insufficient to maintain schools, for 
we know that a law enacted in 1810 provided that a district might 
use tuition to help support a school, if found necessary after 
expending the income from the two sources mentioned. (Conn. 
Kept., 1853, 147) 

The constitution adopted by Connecticut in 1818 includes a 
provision about the School Fund, a portion of which is given: 

"The fund, called the School Fund, shall remain a perpetual fund, the 
interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated to the support and encour- 
agement of the public or common schools throughout the State, and for the 
equal benefit of all people thereof. . . . and no law shall ever be made 
authorizing said fund to be diverted to any other use than the encouragement 
and support of common schools, among the several school societies, as justice 
and equity shall require." {Ibid., 147) 

The wording "and for the equal benefit of the people thereof" 
reveals the original conception of the use of such funds. They 
were not to equaUze burdens, and thereby equaUze opportunities. 
But the words "as justice and equity shall require" gave a 
chance for a better interpretation. Cubberley would have the 
income from such a fund so distributed that it would " tend to best 
equalize the burdens and the advantages of education throughout 
the State." {State and County Education Reorganization, 9) 
Comparing this statement with the wording "as justice and 
equity shall require, " it seems that the aims of the two are identi- 
cal. It would seem, then, that as early as 1818, Connecticut 
had a constitutional basis for the establishment of the very best 
mode of distribution of its School Fund income. 

A rough estimate shows that the income from the School Fund, 
together with the state tax, made unnecessary much taxation for 
schools in districts. The people and the legislature evidently 
felt that the fund alone was enough, for by a law of 1820 it was 
provided that as soon as the income from the fund reached $62,000 
per year, the state tax for schools should be discontinued. The 
income reached the amount named in 1821, and that year the 



Connect icut 21 

state tax for schools, in existence since colonial times, was dis- 
continued. In 1820, the school population was 30.59 per cent, 
of the total population, or 84,184. (Table I, Appendix) Thus 
the income from the fund would amount to about seventy-five 
cents per child. Many children of school age were not attending 
school. In a district enumerating forty children of school age, 
an income of thirty dollars would be received from the fund. It 
would be possible, under such conditions, to employ a teacher for 
three or four months. A writer in the North American Review 
is quoted by Barnard to the effect that "the pubhc money affords 
the requisite aliment, " and no obligation rested upon districts or 
societies to increase school support. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 149) 
In 1828, Governor Tomlinson said that there was *'too much 
reason to conclude that the liberal endowment of common schools" 
had caused a relaxation in efforts to keep the schools in good con- 
dition. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 154) A legislative committee of the 
same year stated that they were ''fully aware that the strong 
reliance upon annual aid derived from the School Fund" was 
accompanied by lack of exertion in school districts and societies. 
(Ibid., 155) 

About 1828-1830, there began to be some evidences in Connec- 
ticut of that movement known as the ''Educational Revival." 
Some statements of persons connected with this movement are 
of significance. The Hon. Roger M. Sherman, writing in 1828 
to the members of a New Jersey voluntary association for the 
improvement of schools, declared that the School Fund income 
should be distributed to such communities as raise a like amount 
of money for schools.^ This is one of the first public expressions 
of sound principles of apportionment of state school support in 
Connecticut. The president of Brown University and the chair- 

1 "Requiring of the recipients of the public bounty nothing more than it be 
expended according to the provisions of the law, is an obvious defect in the 
system. ... A sum proportioned to the amount received from the State, 
ought to be advanced for the same objects, by all to whom it is distributed 
excepting the indigent. A public fund for the instruction of youth in common 
schools, is of no comparative worth as a means of relieving want. A higher 
value would consist in its being made an instrument for exciting general exertion, 
for the attainment of that important end. In proportion as it excites and 
fosters a salutary zeal, it is a public blessing. It may have on any other prin- 
ciple of application, a contrary tendency, and become worse than useless. 
They would willingly pay seventy thousand dollars more, if made a condition 
of receiving the State bounty, and thus the amount would be doubled, for an 
object in which they would feel they had some concern." (Conn. Rept., 1853, 
155-156) 



22 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

man of the association just referred to both declared that the 
administration of the income of the Connecticut fund had pro- 
duced injury to the school system. From New York, Massa- 
chusetts, and Kentucky came expressions of similar nature. 
(Ibid., 156-160) Sherman's suggestion included the idea of 
support by tuition and rate-bills. 

At a convention of teachers and others interested in education, 
held at Hartford in November, 1830, the president of Amherst 
College declared that the schools had decHned because many 
communities had placed entire dependence upon the School 
Fund income for school support, and suggested a plan similar to 
that described by Sherman. ^ The next year, the governor urged 
an investigation of the effects of the School Fund, and recom- 
mended a district tax of one cent on the dollar. (Ibid., 163) 

Thus far, the history of the fund seems to show that it actually 
weakened school support and fostered a lack of interest in schools. 
The method of distributing this income may show causes for such 
influence. When first estabhshed, the income was apportioned 
upon the tax valuation basis. Later, it was changed to the school 
enumeration basis, the ages included being four to sixteen years. 
Until 1856, this money was paid over to societies upon receipt 
from the societies of certificates to the effect that they had main- 
tained schools for at least four months in the year, that only 
legally certified teachers had been employed, that schools had 
been visited (inspected) according to law, and that all money 
from the state treasury had been used in payment of teachers' 
salaries. Penalty for non-compliance was the forfeiture of 
School Fund income. False certification of legal school con- 
ditions incurred a liability previously mentioned. {Ibid., Ap- 
pendix, II : 13) When a society received this money, it might use 
a different mode of apportioning it to the districts, but it could 
not legally grant any of the money to a district having less than 
twelve children of school age, or to a district that had failed to 
maintain legal school conditions. Such money might be appor- 

1 "Let your enlightened Legislature, after the example of the State of New 
York, pass a law, requiring every town to raise a sum for the support of com- 
mon schools, equal at least to what it draws from the public treasury. Such a 
law, I have no doubt, would work wonders. It would wake up an interest 
which is now unfelt. It would make parents everywhere feel that they have 
something to do. It would enable districts to offer liberal wages, and to con- 
tinue their respective schools much longer than is now necessary. In this 
wav the public funds might become a great public blessing." (Conn. Rept., 
1855, 161-163) 



Connecticut 23 

tioned upon the enumeration basis, or upon the "number of 
persons who shall have attended the common school, or schools 
in said district during the year preceding." As worded, this 
latter mode was really but little more than an enumeration basis. 
Each district was to receive at least thirty-five dollars. {Ibid., 
13) In 1852, the state also took into consideration this minimum 
grant of thirty-five dollars in making its apportionment to the 
societies. Two dividends had been made each year, but begin- 
ning with 1852 one was made. In actual practice societies dis- 
tributed the money upon the enumeration basis, but in 1854, the 
society of Thompson apportioned "according to the actual 
attendance . . . with the most satisfactory results." In 
1855, the superintendent strongly recommended the average 
attendance basis. (Ibid., 1855, 22) The actual effect of the 
minimum grant of thirty-five dollars per district was to encourage 
the erection of small districts when a faction in a society became 
dissatisfied with school conditions. {Ibid., 1855, 24) In 1855, 
there were forty-five districts having less than twelve children 
of school age, and in spite of this they received School Fund 
money upon the enumeration basis. A year later the limitation 
concerning twelve children was abolished, and all districts were 
to receive at least thirty-five dollars. (Conn. Rept., 1860, 34-37) 
With the abolition of the societies in 1856, the apportionment of 
this money to the districts reverted to the towns, but they could 
do no better than the societies. In 1868, the secretary showed 
that districts could not longer depend upon the fund as the sole 
source of school support, because "as the number of children 
increases, the amount per child constantly diminishes." (Rept., 
152) 

During this period the commissioners of the School Fund 
suggested almost every possible single basis for distribution of 
the money. None, however, devised or suggested a combination 
basis, although for a part of the period the state was actually 
using a sort of combination basis upon which it distributed the 
school money. The record of the investment of the fund shows 
an astonishing care for the fund and most successful management 
in that respect. But as an agency to improve schools, it failed 
almost entirely for a part of the period, and for the balance it did 
not have the stimulating influence that it was possible for it to 
have. It is very probable that it served to keep schools of some 



24 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

sort in session for a required number of months, and that to some 
degree it secured better quaUfied teachers. But Httle evidence 
exists to show such results, and record of continual complaint of 
the evil effect of the fund does exist. (See Appendix for statistical 
record of fund) 

The Town Deposit Fund 

The School Fund was created in 1795-1796. The Town 
Deposit Fund had its beginning in 1836. The Congress of the 
United States, in 1835-1836, considered the finances of the 
country in a flourishing condition. The national debt had been 
paid and the treasury contained a surplus. On June 23, 1836, 
Congress enacted a law whereby all the money in the United 
States Treasury, except a reserve of $5,000,000, was to be de- 
posited on the first day of January, 1837, with the several states in 
proportion to the combined number of senators and representa- 
tives in any state. There were 52 senators and 242 representa- 
tives in Congress. Connecticut was represented by eight men in 
this group and hence would have received eight two-hundred- 
ninety-fourths of the total amount deposited. The total of this 
would have been a little over a million dollars. The distribution 
was to be made in four installments — on the first days of Jan- 
uary, April, July, and October, 1837; but after three had been 
made, the panic of 1837 caused Congress to withhold payment 
of the last share until 1839. In fact it has never been paid. By 
this distribution Connecticut received $764,670.60. The money 
could be legally recalled by the United States government. The 
state legislature, in December, 1836, enacted the following law 
concerning the use of this money: 

"The money which shall thus be received from the United States, . . , 
shall be deposited with the several towns in this State, in proportion to their 
respective popuhitions, as ascertained by the last census (1830), . . . and 
shall be repaid into the State treasury whenever payment thereof shall be 
required by an act of the General Assembly, or by proclamation of the person 
administering the office of Governor, for the purpose of being paid into the 
treasury of the United States." 

The towns were required to meet other conditions in order to 

receive this money: 

"First, that such town keep and preserve the money as a deposit, and in 
trust for the State. Secondly, that it appropriate at least one-half of the 
entire income or interest thereof, annually for the promotion of education in 



Connecticut 25 

the common schools in such town, . . . and the remainder for the pur- 
pose of defraying the ordinary expenses of such town. Thirdly, that it make 
good each and every deficiency in the amount received, should any loss occur 
through mismanagement or other cause. Fourthly, that it repay into the 
State treasury the whole amount received therefrom of said money, or such 
part thereof as may be required, whenever the same shall be called for in the 
manner specified in this Act. " 

Nineteen years later (1855), this law was modified so as to re- 
quire that the entire income be expended for public schools.^ 

By the act of 1836, the selectmen could borrow the money at a 
very nominal rate of interest, and they made use of their chance. 
In some cases, the rate was but one per cent. Such conditions 
existed with legal sanction for twenty-nine years. Finally, in 
1859, to stop such outrages against the school children of the 
state, the legislature enacted a law which made the following 
requirements: (1) the towns might prescribe terms of loans from 
this fund, except that the rate of interest must not be less than 
six per cent.; (2) towns which had previously loaned this money 
at less than six per cent, were required to re-loan it at the legal 
rate prescribed; (3) in any case, they must turn over to school 
support a net income of six per cent, from this fund. (Conn. Rept., 
1864, 49-50) 

In spite of legal regulations, this fund was mismanaged. The 
state exercised no supervision over it, and many local commu- 
nities actually used the capital and left nothing but an obligation 
to pay six per cent, upon this amount for school support. The 

1 The status of this fund, as reported by the superintendent, the secretary of 
state, and state board of education, is shown, year by year, in the following: 

Year Amount for Year Amount for 

School Support School Support 

1847 $53441.00 1862 $45819.00 

1853 25000.00 1863 45819.00 

1854 25000.00 1864 45819.00 

1855 50000.00 1865 45819.75 

1857 35000.00 1866 47951.72 

1858 45819.00 1867 44979.34 

1859 45819.00 1868 43983.75 

1860 45819.00 1869 44883.94 

1861 45819.00 

These figures are only approximations. The amount for 1857 is given as 
$48242.00 in the Connecticut Report for 1858, p. 182. The amount reported 
annually from 1858 to 1865 is estimated upon the basis of the supposed amount 
of the fund in existence and the income on this at 6 per cent, as was required by 
law. After 1865, the amount indicated is that which the secretary of the 
state board stated was actually reported to him. 



26 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Connecticut School Report for 1888' (134-147) contains the 
following commentary upon the management of this fund: 

"... in 1887 the ostensil)le amount of this fund was $753,326.87. 
Of this amount about five-sevenths has been borrowed from this fund by the 
towns, or in other words, they have misappropriated it to their own use. They 
have not put themselves in the position of borrowers, but they have taken the 
fund, regarding it as belonging to them. It cannot be found that the fund 
adds to the number of schools, or augments the appliances or the libraries; it 
does not add to the wages of good teachers, or promote good teaching, it does 
not increase attendance, or decrease illiteracy, or arouse any general or public 
interest in the schools themselves." (Quoted in Steiner, Education in Connec- 
ticut, 43) 

So far as the influence of this fund on the development of free 
schools is concerned, it could have been, under a good manage- 
ment by the state, a means of furthering this desirable end. As it 
was, it is inconceivable that it should, in any way, stimulate a 
locality to taxation for schools — the first essential of a free school 
system. It is conceivable, however, that in certain localities 
this income, together with the income from the school fund, 
amounted to enough to maintain a legal school four months in a 
year without either taxation or rate-bills. 

Local Funds 

The origin of some of these funds has been indicated in the 
discussion about educational conditions of the colonial period. 
The Hopkins fund and the Bartlett bequest are two examples 
dating from that period. Some of these funds may have orig- 
inated, also, from the distribution among the eastern towns of 
proceeds from the sale of land in the western towns of the state, 
during the colonial period. The grants made for the four county 
grammar schools would be another possible source. In addition 
other bequests were left from time to time to support schools, 
e.g., the Staples fund of 1781. Other examples are: (1) A fund 
of $834.00 given by Isaac Coit of Plainfield about 1812 or 1816. 
The interest from this and tuition together constituted the sup- 
port of an academy at that village. (2) Bacon Academy of 
Colchester had a fund of $36,000 given by Mr. Bacon in 1803. 
(3) The Norwich Free Academy, originally endowed by sub- 
scriptions amounting to $76,000, $50,000 of which was perma- 
nent endowment, in 1890, had buildings and endowment amount- 
ing to about $400,000. (Steiner, Education in Connecticut, 



Connecticut 27 

47-56) As most of these examples show, such funds were 
used to support or to help in supporting academies. Yet some 
of these gave elementary as well as secondary instruction. This 
was true of Bacon Academy and the Norwich Free Academy. 
The income from such funds, as reported by the secretary of the 
State Board of Education, is shown in the table following: 

Year Income Year Income 

1856 $11327.00 1865 $13786.00 

1857 11327.00 1866 ,.... 39782.79' 

1858 17489.00 1867 38231.59' 

1859 22815 .00 1868 99981 .66' 

1860 15207.00 1869 95527.00' 

1861 18873.00 1870 12300. .34 

1862 25584.00 1871 7920.77 

1863 11696.00 1872 9627.23 

1864 10403.00 

These funds may have been indicative of the zeal of some prop- 
ertied people of Connecticut for the cause of education. Because 
they helped to maintain academies in the period of transition from 
Latin grammar schools to public high schools, they may have 
helped to keep alive an interest in secondary education. But so 
far as being free schools themselves, only one claimed to be — 
Norwich Free Academy — but even this institution charged some 
small fees. For practical purposes, it may, however, be con- 
sidered a free school. But it was not supported by taxation, nor 
is it so supported to-day. These funds seem quite comparable 
with some of the endowments of the English endowed schools. 
Back of them is no idea of stimulating a community to active 
interest in education, rather they are supposed to furnish the 
means of education as a free gift or nearly so — very much akin to 
charity. The existence of such schools would always be a bar 
to developing taxation for support. The theory back of such 
schools, even when really free, is at variance with taxation as a 
means of support. This is well shown in the case of the Norwich 
Free Academy. An address made at the dedication of the build- 
ing of the Norwich Free Academy reveals the ideas of the found- 
ers. The speaker, one of the leaders of the enterprise, questioned 
the value of supporting schools by taxation. This was the very 
first issue he raised. He contended that public opinion might be 
sufficient to support elementary schools by taxation, but that it 

'Include funds from "other sources." In 1869. income from local funds 
was $8919.15, and from "other sources," $86,607.85. This would indicate a 
probable decrease in this source of support. 



28 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

would not work for secondary schools. Again, an endowed school 
would not be subject to popular elections and changes in con- 
trol. The points at issue are similar in some respects to those in 
the Kalamazoo high school case. (See Appendix) Such ideas were 
widely enough considered to merit the attention of the Hon. 
George S. Boutwell, secretary of the Massachusetts Board of 
Education. He took issue with the advocates of such school 
support and openly favored public support. He further de- 
clared that such institutions could not meet future needs of a 
changing society, as well as one dependent on public support. 
(Brown, 318-319) While the Norwich institution does not seem 
to have caused the establishment of a line of endowed institutions, 
the theory of such a means of school support was opposed to 
public taxation. In so far as this was a part of the current 
opinion of the time, it must have helped to retard support by 
taxation. It should not be overlooked, however, that the very 
presence of such a high type of school and the instruction it gave 
worked an amount of good which far outweighed its injury to the 
development of free schools supported by taxation. 

The evidence concerning local funds does not show that they 
had very much influence in stimulating school support and in- 
terest in education or to have helped in securing free schools. 

Tuition and Rate-Bills 

The existence of tuition charges in Connecticut goes back to the 
beginning of the colony. The action of the Hartford town meet- 
ing in employing Mr. Andrews, already referred to, shows the 
recognition of tuition as early as 1643. In fact, this is one of the 
very earliest examples for this state. Clews (76) shows that in 
1658 each child was to pay 8s. tuition in Wethersfield, and that 
in 1650 Stratford employed a schoolmaster and required parents 
of the children to pay one-half of the expense. In the Hartford 
action of 1643, not only was tuition charged, but the other im- 
portant part of rate-bill support, — the exemption of the poor 
from payment of tuition — was also present. Other examples 
occurred from time to time up to the Revolution, but no record 
has been found that the General Court ever established rate-bills 
as a means of school support. It did provide for tuition by the 
law of 1650 and its later amendments. There are examples of 
action of the Court by which certain poor people were exempted 
from payment of their colony rates. 



Connecticut 29 

In the first general law after the Revolution, that of 1784, the 
earlier provisions of 1750 appeared without any mention of 
tuition or rate-bills. However, in the law of 1796 for schools, 
there appeared the following concerning school support: 

"That where in any town or society there is not a sufficiency of money or 
interest provided, in the manner aforesaid, or by charitable donations, or 
sequestrations, or in other ways procured for the maintenance of a school as 
aforesaid ... a sufficient maintenance shall be made up, one-half by the 
inhabitants of such town or society, and the other half thereof by the Parents 
or Masters of the youth or children that go to such school; unless any town or 
society shall agree otherwise; which they are hereby empowered to do." 
(Laws of Conn., 1796, 371-375) 

By this law, for the first time after the Revolution the state itself 
made optional and legal the use of tuition to add to school sup- 
port so that a school could be maintained longer than was pos- 
sible by the income of the school fund. It is probable that this 
law recognized an existing practice, for it had existed before the 
Revolution; yet no evidence has been found of the actual use of 
tuition in the period of 1790-1800. It has been claimed that a 
law enacted in 1810 was the first law to provide for tuition bills, 
which of course is an error, as this law of 1796 shows. In the 
codification of 1799, concerned with taxation and the school 
fund, no mention occurs of a provision like that of 1796. (Barn- 
ard, Conn, Rept., 185-193) In the codification published in 
1805, the provision of 1796 is found intact. (Conn. Laws, 1805) 
Barnard states that "In 1810 the expense of keeping a district 
school over the amount of public money was apportioned among 
the proprietors of the school according to the number of days 
each had sent a scholar or scholars to the schools, and in 1811 this 
was altered so as to authorize the apportionment according to the 
number of persons sent.^ (Conn. Rept., 1853, 147) From an 
early time, it seems that each parent was expected to furnish 
his share of fuel for the heating of the schoolroom. In 1824, the 
following law was enacted: 

"That no child or children shall be denied the privilege of attending school 
in any school district established by law in this state, to which such child or 
children belong, for, or on account of the inability of parent or parents, guardian 
or master of such child or children, to supply his, her, or their proportion of 
wood in such district — any law to the contrary notwithstanding." 

* The writer has been unable to verify this statement. 



30 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

This did not take from the district committee, however, the 
power to use due process of law to compel the furnishing of fuel 
or payment of fuel tax. (Laws of Conn., 1824, 46-47) 

The next tuition law — that of 1839 — is a true rate-bill law, 
the first one enacted by the state. One extension of the applica- 
tion of tuition was made. The district committee was empowered 
to see that pupils were supphed with books, and, if necessary, to 
furnish such books and assess the expense upon the parents or 
guardians of the children concerned. This law allowed a district 
to charge tuition for excess of school expense above the income 
from "monies appropriated by law." The tuition was to be 
charged in proportion to attendance of pupils. Contingent 
expenses other than salary could be included in these bills, but 
not to exceed a total of twenty dollars per year. Children unable 
to pay could not be excluded from school, and the tuition of such 
children would be paid by the town to the district, whenever the 
district committee and the town selectmen agreed upon the 
exemption of the pupil from the charge. All the machinery of 
rate-bills except the collection and blank forms used in collection 
of tuition was provided in this law.^ 

It should be remembered that this law was enacted in the year 
when the school district became a corporate body with strong 
power. Before a new law was enacted opposition to the use of 
rate-bills had begun to appear. In 1856, as a part of a comprehen- 

* The important sections of this first general rate-bill law read as follows: 

"15. Whenever the expense of keeping a common school by a teacher duly 
qualified, shall exceed the amount of monies appropriated by law to defray the 
expense of such school, the committee in such district for the time being, may 
examine, adjust, and allow all bills of expense incurred for the support of said 
school, and assess the same upon the parents, guardians, and masters of such 
children as attended the same, according to the number and time sent by each. " 

" 16. Whenever the contingent expenses of any school district, arising from 
repairs of schoolhouses or its appendages, books, costs, damages, or any other 
source, shall not exceed the sum of $20 a year, the same may be included in the 
above assessment." 

"26. No child shall be excluded from any school supported in all or in part 
out of any money appropriated or raised by law for this purpose, in the district 
to which such child belongs, on account of the inability of the parent, guardian, 
or master of the same to pay his or her tax or assessment for any school purpose 
whatever; and the school committee of such district and the selectmen, or a 
majority of the same of the town or towns in which such district shall be 
located, shall constitute a Board with power to abate taxes and assessments of 
stich persons as are unable to pay the same in all, or in part, and the said selectmen 
shall draw an order for the amount of such abatement upon the treasurer of the 
town in which such persons reside, in favor of said district. " (Barnard, Conn. Com. 
Sch. Jour., 195-196, Law of 1839) (Italics not in original.) 



Connecticut 31 

sive codification of the school laws, a new rate-bill statute was 
enacted. Even though enacted after seventeen years of practice 
under the law of 1839, this law shows few changes. Rate-bills 
could be charged for tuition, fuel, books, etc., when the state 
money was insufficient. While the law would not permit use of 
rate-bills so long as there was state money to use, the prohibition 
was practically of no concern. No one thought of using such 
means, unless state money ran out too soon. The district com- 
mittee alone could exempt indigent persons from payment of these 
bills, while the law of 1839 required such exemptions to be made 
by a board composed of selectmen and district committee. In the 
law of 1839, no maximum tuition rate was fixed; by this law there 
were two maxima — one of one dollar per scholar for twelve weeks 
in common schools, and two dollars, for a like term, in "the 
higher grades. " A very important change was that "all such 
bills may be required in advance." This was a device which it 
was hoped would be used to stop the decrease in attendance as 
soon as public money gave out.' While this law was in force, 
many districts began taxation. The number for 1855 was 63; 
for 1857, 125; and for 1858, 245. Many districts desired a higher 
rate of tuition and many desired free schools. (Conn. Rept., 
1860, 40-42) 

In the actual working of the law of 1856, it was soon found that 
the optional advance payment of tuition bills was not utilized. 
This caused trouble in payment of teachers' salaries, because the 
actual school support could not be determined until the tuition 
was collected. Two years later, a new rate-bill and tuition 
statute was enacted, with the purpose of remedying this condi- 
tion. By this law of 1858, tuition bills might be fixed "at or 
before the commencement of a term." The use of the terms 



' Chapter IV, sec. 13, of the law of 1856, read as follows: 

"Any school district may fix, or authorize its district committee to fix, a 
rate of tuition to be paid by the persons attending school, or by their parents, 
guardians or employers, towards the expense of fuel, books and other expenses 
(including estimated deficiencies of payment) over and above the money re- 
ceived from the town or state appropriations, and the district or district com- 
mittee shall exempt therefrom all persons whom they consider unable to pay 
the same; provided, that the rate of tuition shall not exceed one dollar per 
scholar for any term of twelve weeks, except in districts where different grades 
of common schools are established where the rate for the higher grades shall 
not exceed two dollars per scholar for the same time. 

''AH such bills may be required to be paid in advance, or may be delivered 
to the town or district collector, and may be by him collected in the same man- 
ner as town taxes are collected." 



32 Dcvdttjnncnl of Free Schools in Ific (Jniicd States 

" may fix . . . ilic; ral.c, of tuition," s(',(;iriiiifi;ly left it oi)tional 
a^^niri. However, the Htato Hup(^rint,(!n(l(!Tit interpreted the 
[)roviHiori mm iri;iii(lut(nv- This law soon j)ro(lu(!e(l coiifuHion. 
Legally no (liHtii(!t (tould use a rat(;-l)ill uiiIchh it waH fixed "at 
or Ix^fore" th(! hegirmiii^ of a term. Many di.striet committees 
through itj;iiorance or cjirc^lesstiess failed to do ko, and when they 
later mad(! out nueh bills found th(!m illegal, and hence very diffi- 
cult to collecit. 'fFiey wore legally abh; to levy a tax to make up 
Hiich (leficiencie;H, but unwilling to do so. 'i'lu^ mo(l(^ of exempt- 
ing an indigent fxirson was also changed. "TIk^ s(!l(M:tm(!n, or 
board of Hchool visitors, as a board, shall, on ai)plication of the 
disfric^t committees, exciinj)! therefrom all persons whom they 
(tonsider unable to pay the same." 'Phis i)la(;ed final action in 
such matters with the towns, where it had partly been by the law 
of \H'M). The niMximum rates of tuition wova also changed to 
two and four dolljus r('S|)(sctiv(sly.' Of (;ours(! a protest came up 
to tlie state capital from many districts and thcs law was changed 
in 1851). This law hitd but two changes in wording; otherwise 
it was identical with tlu; law of 1S.'")S. 'Vhv words "at or before 
the commencement of any ferm," ;uid "including estimated 
dchciericies" wens omitted. {Ih'uL, '11 '12) This did not stop the 
difficulties. 'V\u\ following complaints were now i)i(ss(snt(xi by 
those aggrieved: (1) "By not recpiiring any particudar time at 
which rate-bills shall be fixed, parents and guardians are uncertain 
in regai'd f.o tin; csxpense of sending to school, and often detain 
their (children or wards at home on account of uncsertainty in 
regard to the expcsnse, or scsnd (o th(s private scshools, 1o the great 
injury of tins publii; scshools"; (2) "There seems to be a strong 
desire in some portions of the state that the schools shall be either 

' In 1868, BCc. KJ, nf Ww Inw of 1S,^('» wuh r('|)la<'('(l l)y «('<"• 1, <'1>- l-'^- 

"Any Hcliool (liH(ii(^( niiiy fix, <ir luitliorizc Kh diNtrict cotiiinittcc to (ix, at. or 
licforr the roninicnccninil of d Itrni, ii rule of tiiilioii (o be p.-iid l)V lli<' pciHons 
iiitciKJiiij? Hcliool, (ir Ity (lirir piirciilH, nuMrdifiiiK, or nnployciH, (owjirds the 
rxpcriHc of inslruci ion, furl, hookH uiid other cxpciiHcs (iri('hidiii(j; est iiiiutcd 
dcdcicncicM of piiyiiirnl ), over nnil iiliovc \\\v iiioncy received from (he town or 
Stiilc nppropriiitioiiH, nnd the Hclectrnen or l)oiird of school visitors, iis ii honrd, 
hhidl on ]ip|)lic)it ion of the district, coinniittee exein|>t. then^froni ;ili iXTSons 
whom they consider unnhie to pay the siinie; iind I lie selectmen siiall (Iriiw an 
or(h'r on the treasurer of the town in whicli said <listrict is located, in favor of 
Huch district., for the amount, of su<"h al)aiemen< ; provided that the rale of 
tuition Nkiill not rxcciil ttro ilollor.t iter srholiir for din/ Icrni of tm-lvc vvcks; cr- 
cvjit in ilintrirtu ii'lurr <lijft rrnt f/r<i<l<s of common srhooln orv tatahlishvd, whrn the 
rnlf for ttir higher f/rodt k sholl not cirtrd four dolhirs pir scholar for the same 
lime." (('omi. Kept., ISCiO, '11) (Italics not in original.) 



Connecticut '.V.i 

made fr(;(!,or tlic ratcof t,uiti(jii fixed and known before tlu; Usrrnof 
school begins"; (3) "In Bomo cases, lon^ aft(;r a term has been 
clos(!(l, (hHtricts have i'lxod a raUi-bill whf'n a majority of thos(; 
attending school were unable to i)ay, and the districts have sought 
abatements and orders on the town treasury for the amount of 
these; bills." (Ibid., 42) It took such (ixperieric(;s as th(!S(! to 
convince peof)le that tlujy were; trying to do an impossible thing. 
If they fixed a rate of tuition before the term, the attendance 
might be too small to bring in tuition enough to mcuit (!xi)(!nH(!s; 
if they failed to fix the rate of tuition, people objected because of 
the uncertainty and some would not send their children. In 
either case;, tlu; district committ(!e was in a dihimma, and yet it 
took ten years more of such experience to convince enough [)eopI(5 
of the state of its futility to finally enable the legislature to abol- 
ish rate-bills entirely. The legislature amend(!d tins law in 18G0 
as follows: 

"All rate-bills, or aHHCHHrncntH for tuition, madf! by uriy {iint,ri<;t,, in accordance 
with i;\m])\,vs 4.'1, Hocliori 1, of tfie actn of IHW, whail \>v. rriudf! out urid d(!livc;n;d 
to the diHtriot colltictor within one; w(!(!k from tho clow; of the; tenii; und tho 
H.'iid collcicrtor nhjill Jiiive tlic; Hurno [)ow<!r and authority in tlie colhuition of hu(;Ii 
ratc-bilia, aw tlic coUectorw of town taxca have." (Sch. Lawa of Conn., 18W), 
26, in Conn. Rept., 1860) 

By the first part of this act, it was hoped that difficulty number 
three, TruintioiKid above;, would be; avoidc^d. "^riu; second [)rovision 
tight(;ned up the reins of control with nsgard to actual colNiction. 
From earliest times, the collectors of taxes had power to levy on 
goods or prop(!r(.y and naW them for uni)aid taxes. This power, 
though impli(!<i in pnsvious laws, was now made sf)(M;ifi(;. This 
was one step further towards property taxation for school sup- 
port. 

The law of 1800 did not nsiruidy th<! situation, for in 1SG2 the 
whole rate-bill statute was reorganized. By this law a rate-bill 
could b(! made out at any l(!gal mc^eting of the; district, from the 
b(!ginnirig of the y(!ar to thn^e weeks after th(! close of school. In 
the next place, the maximum rates of tuition were put upon a 
yearly basis instead of a term basis. It is impossible to tell 
whether these rates are rais(;d or not. In tlu; third i)lac<!, an 
attempt was made to charge all persons the full term tuition so 
they could not have the excuse of saving tuition as a device to 
evade attendance. 'J'his was so fixed that deductions could not 



34 Dcvdopmcnl of Free Schooh in the United States 

be made, in any case, for less than a continuous absence of four 
weeks. Tlu) cases where deductions could b(! made were "absences 
from school on account of sickness, death, removal from the 
district, or other good reason, when the district committee may 
make a I'casonabk! deduclion.' Tlu^st! (ixcciptions should be noted 
here, and also the aM;en(;y which could make the deductions. 
Spcakinp; of the practice of making; out rate-l)ills on actual 
attendance, in 18G4 tli(^ secr(!tary of the state; board said: "There 
are a few districts, mostly in agricultural towns, which still make 
out a s(!hool bill in this manner, but there has been no legal 
authority for the collection of such l)ills for many years. The 
common schools in all the cities, in most of the larger manufactur- 
ing villages and in many agricultural districts are made free by 
a tax on ))rop(U'ty" and thus avoid all of this trouble. (Conn, 
Rept., 1804-()5, 53) A year lat(M' the same official said: "The 



' 'I'ho r:ite-l)ill Ktututc of 1862 was as follows: 

" S;h'. 1. Any school distric^t in luwful incctinit!;, may fix, or authorize its 
district coinrniticc to fix n rale of tuition to he jwiid by the persons attending 
school, or by their parents, guardians, or employers, towards the expenses of 
instruction, fuel, hooks, or other expenses, over and ahovc^ the mon(\v received 
from the town or State appropriations; and the selectmen and board of visitors, 
as a board shall, on ap[)li(rat ion of the dist-ricrt conunittce, exempt therefrom all 
persons whom tlu^y consider unal)le to |)a,y tlie sain(^; and the selectmen shall 
issue an order on the treasurer of the town, in which su(!h district is located, in 
favor of such district, for the amount of such abatements. 

"Sec. 2. 'rh(> rate of tuition fixed as aforesaid .shall not exceed six dollars 
per scholar for each school year or a proport ionate sum for each term of school, 
or part of a year, except in districts where dilTerent grades of common schools 
are established, where the rate for tlie higher grades shall not exceed twelve 
dollars per scholar per school year. 

"Sec. [i. Such rat(^ of tuition may be fixed by a district at any time during 
the H(!hool year, or within three weeks after tlie close thereof, and shall be 
a.ssessed on all persons who may attend, or upon their i)arents, guardians, or 
employers; and for any person attending schools during any part of the term, 
tlu^ wholes tuition fee for said tc^rm shall he paid, (>xcept in (^asesof al)sences from 
siihool on accoutd. of sickness, death, removal from the district, or ollirr (jood 
reason, when the district committee may make a reasonable deduction from the 
sum to be i).'iid for e.ach person ; biit^ in no case shall any deduction he made for 
any absence excejit for a continuous ahs(>nce of not less than four weeks. 

"Sec. 4. Wlienever a rate of tuition has been fixed by any school district, 
in accordance with the |)rovisions of this a(^t, th(> rate-bill, or asses.sment of such 
tuition .shall he ma(l(> out .and signed by the distric^t committee, and may be 
delivered to t he collector of t lu> (list ri(^t , or if t Ii(>re he no district collector, then 
to (Mther const.able of the town; and said collector, or (n)nstal)le shall have the 
same power in tlu^ collect ion of thc^ s.ame, as is possessed by ('olku'tors of town 
taxes; and nwh constable shall l)e allowed the same fees for collecting as are 
allowed the collectors of State taxes." 

The last .se(^tion repealed all other rat(>-bill laws and provided that, the change 
should not alTect any past events concerned with tuition. (Conn. Kept., 1804- 
]8(ir), 52-53) 



Connecticut 35 

amount received from this source last year was $31,422. More 
difficulty is experienced in collecting this amount in school bills 
than in collecting $227,000 assessed as taxes by districts and 
towns." (Conn. Kept. 1865, 8) 

Instead of lessening the difficulties, the legislature condoned 
them. This is shown by a long series of special validating laws 
for illegal acts. One of these, enacted June 19, 1863, validated 
assessments for rate-bills when officials failed to make them out 
within the prescribed time. (Laws of 1863, Chap. VIII) A law 
enacted five days later attempted to remedy difficulties caused 
by carelessness of collectors. If any collector was found to be un- 
provided with the proper warrant for collection of rate-bills or 
taxes, "it shall be lawful for the selectmen ... to apply to 
some justice of the peace . . . to issue a warrant. . . . " 
(Laws of 1863, Chap. IX) On July 10 of the same year another 
vahdating act was passed. (Laws of 1863, Chap. XLVIII) 
At various times, certain joint and union districts had been 
organized in various parts of the state. In much of the school 
legislation, provisions were inserted making the usual rate-bill 
regulations and laws apply to them. As late as 1861, such pro- 
vision was made for New Haven. (Laws of 1861, 21-26, Chap, 
XXVII) Joint districts were formed of territory from two or 
more adjoining towns. In some cases, the amount of school tax 
collected in the territory belonging to one town exceeded the 
amount collected in the other. By a law of June 30, 1864, it 
was provided that the excess school tax in such cases should be 
applied to the payment of tuition bills of children residing in the 
town where the tax was collected. (Laws of 1864, Chap. XXII) 
July 9, of the same year, the whole rate-bill law was re-codified. 
It differed from that of 1862, in one important particular, which 
is shown in the section following: 

"All applications made to the selectmen and board of viBitors for the abate- 
ment of tuition bills assessed by any district, shall be made within twelve 
months from the close of the school term, for which such tuition bills are due." 
(Laws of 1864, Chap. LXXVI; Conn. Kept., 1866-1867, 168) 

No other general or special laws relating to rate-bills have been 
found in the legislation of Connecticut since 1864, except the 
free school laws of 1869-1870, which will be treated elsewhere. 
In going over this legislation one must be impressed with the 
utter futility of efficiently regulating such a financial scheme as 



36 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Connecticut tried. Any change made seemed to accentuate 
existing difficulties or create some new difficulty of administering 
the law. 

Having shown the legislative history of tuition and rate-bills, 
an attempt will next be made to indicate the actual use of these 
means of school support. By reference to Table II (Appendix) 
this is partly shown. In some cases these may be general 
approximations. Yet they show a general tendency to a grad- 
ual increase from 1846 to 1868, the last year they were legal. 
One may ask, "What about the previous period, from 1790 to 
1840?" Not having many statistical records of those years, no 
one can say absolutely what conditions existed. There is a strong 
supposition, however, that rate-bills were used but little then, 
because, as has been shown, the income from the school fund in 
many districts was sufficient to pay teachers' salaries for three or 
four months a year. By reference to Table IX B and C, Ap- 
pendix, it will be seen that as late as 1848 the amount contributed 
by the school society was very small, 2.6 per cent, for Willimantic 
and 3.8 per cent, for Salisbury. By inspection of Table II, it will 
be further seen that rate-bills constituted approximately 10 per 
cent, of the total school support for the years 1855-1868. Im- 
mediately after the Civil War all school expenditures increased. 
(See Appendix, Tables II, III, and IV) The increase was least 
marked in the expenditure of money from the school fund. In 
fact, it may hardly be called an increase. It is most marked in 
town and district taxes and rate-bills; in other words, the local 
community now assumed more importance in school support. 

The figures showing the numbers of districts using rate- 
bills are incomplete; yet those given (Table II) show a marked 
tendency to a decrease. In 1855, 70 per cent, used the rate- 
bill; in 1865 nearly 31 per cent, used it. And the figures given 
in Table VI (Appendix) for 1863-1865 seem to show the same 
tendency. The 296 districts for 1865 represented slightly over 
18 per cent, of the total number of districts in the state. It is 
also shown in Table VI (Appendix) that there was a lesser 
tendency to use rate-bills in the eastern counties, i.e., Windham, 
Tolland, and New London; yet they do not seem to show any 
stronger tendency to use district taxation. This may be partly 
accounted for by the fact that the town tax now began to play a 



Connecticut 37 

greater role, even though the district tax was also increasing 
rapidly. (Appendix, Table IV) 

Local Taxation 

At various times in Connecticut there has been practically 
no local taxation for schools, either voluntary or required by the 
state law. It has been shown that a colony rate was levied 
which was re-distributed to the towns. This practice continued 
until 1821, when the legislature abolished the state tax, due to the 
income of the state fund. This state of affairs continued until 
the enactment of the law of 1856 abolishing societies, when the 
so-called one per cent, tax was established. This was essentially 
a town tax, although required by the state laws, for it was levied, 
collected and disbursed within the towns themselves. In 1859, 
the last year this tax was levied, the 161 towns of the state col- 
lected $72,342. This was the largest amount collected under 
the one per cent, law which was in force from 1856 to 1860. (See 
Appendix, Table IV, for amounts of this tax) In a change made 
in 1858, it was required that such taxes were not subject to abate- 
ment. (Conn. Rept., 1861, Public Acts, 28-29) In 1860, this 
rate was changed to three cents on the hundred dollars, and the 
law was referred to as the three per cent, law.^ 

The revenue derived from this the first year (1860) was $72,342. 
(Appendix, Table IV) The law set the minimum. The super- 
intendent of common schools, in 1863, said, "Some towns raise 
more than this amount." (Conn. Rept., 1863, 8) In 1861, this 
"three-tenths" law was changed so that in the distribution of the 
money to the districts, it should be used to make a sum equal to 

1 The so-called three per cent, tax law read as follows : 

"It shall be the duty of each of the towns in this state, annually, on or before 
the first day of March, to raise by taxation such sum of money as they may 
deem advisable, not less than three-tenths of a mill on the dollar, or three cents on 
the hundred dollars, on the grand list on the said first of March last made and 
perfected, and cause the same to be paid into the treasury of the several towns, 
respectively, for the benefit, support and encouragement of common schools; 
and the whole amount of money so raised shall be annually distributed to the 
several school districts within each town, under the direction of the selectmen 
and school visitors. 

"2. If any town shall neglect to raise such sum of money, not less than three- 
tenths of a mill on the dollar, in the manner and within the time limited in the 
preceding section of this act, or shall fail to distribute the same according to the 
provisions of said section, such town shall forfeit and pay to the treasurer of the 
state a sum equal to the amount which it was the duty of such town to raise as afore- 
said, to be recovered by said treasurer in an action upon the case, under the 
statute." (Conn. Rept., 1861, Public Acts, 28-29) 



38 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

thirty-five dollars per district whenever the money from the state 
school fund did not reach that amount. (Conn. Rept., 1864, 50) 
The income from this tax increased from $72,342 in 1860, to 
$93,726.10 in 1866. This is evidence in itself that many towns 
levied more than the required "three-tenths of a mill," for it is 
not likely that the tax valuation would change so much in six 
years, and especially during this period. In 1866, the law was 
amended as follows : 

"Be it enacted . . . that the part of section fifty seven, page three 
hundred thirty six (of the general statutes, 1866) that reads 'not less than 
three-tenths of a mill on a dollar', shall read 'not less than .4 of a mill on a dol- 
lar'." (Conn. Rept., 1868, Appendix CXXVIII) 

This change, together with the increase in tax valuation and 
possible levies above four-tenths of a mill, increased this source of 
income to $149,680.99 in 1867, an increase over the income of 1866 
of 59.4 per cent. In 1867, the legislature proposed several laws 
and continued them till the next session. One of these proposed 
that the money from the town tax and town deposit fund should 
be distributed to the districts on the average daily attendance 
basis. (Conn. Rept., 1868, Appendix CXXXIV) On July 24, 
1868, the legislature enacted two laws, one of very great im- 
portance, both concerned with the town tax. The first enacted 
into law the proposal of the previous year to distribute the in- 
come from the town tax and deposit fund upon the basis of aver- 
age daily attendance, but only after each district had received 
from these two sources and the state school fund at least fifty 
dollars. (Conn. Rept., 1869, 216) The second of these laws was 
the following: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General 
Assembly convened : 

"Sec. 1. Each of the towns in this State, shall annually on or before the 
first day of March raise by taxation, in addition to the four-tenths of a mill 
tax required by section fifty seven, page three hundred and thirty six of the 
general statutes of 1866, as amended by an act approved June 30th, 1866, such 
sums of money as each town may find necessary to make its schools free, not 
less than six-tenths of a mill on the dollar on the grand list of said town made 
and perfected, and cause the same to be paid into the treasury of the several 
towns, respectively, for the support of common schools; and the whole addi- 
tional amount of money so raised shall be annually distributed to the several 
school districts within each town, under the direction of the selectmen and 
school visitors. 

"Sec. 2. If any town shall neglect to raise such sum of money, in the man- 



Connecticut 39 

Ber and within the time limited in the preceding section, or shall fail to dis- 
tribute the same according to the provisions of said section, such town shall for- 
feit to the treasurer of the State a sum equal to the amount which it was the 
duty of the town to raise aforesaid, to be recovered by the said treasurer in an 
action upon the case. 

"Sec. 3. This act shall take effect from the beginning of the next school 
year, but shall not affect any suit then pending, or any claims for rate of tuition 
in schools then in session, or accruing during the present school year. 

"Approved July 24th, 1868." (Conn. Rept., 1869, 217) 

This law is the first free school law for elementary schools 
enacted by Connecticut. It is thus important, as well as a town 
tax law. Under its provisions the income from the town tax 
leaped from $160,347.35 in 1868 to $415,318.26 in 1869, a gain 
of $254,970.91, or 159 per cent. This sum of money may be 
taken as the approximate amount of money needed in 1869 to 
make the schools of Connecticut free. This sum is equivalent to 
five-eighths of the total school resources of 1859. (Appendix, 
Tables II and IV) The amounts collected by the town tax 
from its inception as the ''one per cent, tax" of 1855-1856 to 
1875 are given in Table IV, Appendix. From 1855 to 1857 it 
was greater than the district tax. By the passage of the law of 
July 24, 1868, it' was made approximately equal to the district 
tax. 

Having shown the history of the town tax, the district tax will 
be discussed. The law of 1839, creating districts as bodies 
corporate, carried with it unlimited taxing power, so far as state 
laws were concerned. Yet it should be remembered that the 
acquisition of this power was a part of the decentralization move- 
ment previously described, for as early as 1799 the local district 
had power to levy tax for school buildings, furnishings, and fuel. 
Both union districts and small districts had the power of taxa- 
tion as early as 1841. In the codification of laws in 1853, the 
status remains the same. (Conn. Rept., 1853, Appendix 8-9) 
All taxes levied resulted from action of the district meeting in- 
cluding all legal voters of the district. In any case, it would be 
necessary to convince a majority of these of the necessity of a 
tax before the district would ever have a tax for school purposes. 
They could use the income from funds and rate-bills instead. 
With a different form of organization, this type of taxation might 
have developed more rapidly, although it is but a probability. 
Yet the possession of the power to tax was valuable to those dis- 



40 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

tricts which desired to use it. In 18G2 and 1803, laws were 
enacted providing for the taxing of manufacturing establish- 
ments in the district where they were located — an immense ad- 
vantage to the district fortunate enough to include such an es- 
tablishment. (Conn. Rept., 1864, 47) Down to laws in force in 
1910, the state has not required districts to levy taxes. 

In the decade of 1790-1800, as has been described, the ec- 
clesiastical society practically supplanted the town. With this 
of course went the power to levy a "society tax" for school pur- 
poses. This power remained with the societies until their aboli- 
tion by the law of 1856. However, much of the history of the 
society taxation covers a period when few records were kept, and 
also when the state school fund was the main support of the 
schools, which facts make it impossible to say much more than 
that probably society taxation was never used to any extraordi- 
nary extent. Table IV (Appendix) shows that in 1855, the year 
before the abolition of the societies, the sum of $25,884 was thus 
collected, or twice as nmch as the district tax. 

A comparison of the town and district taxes has already been 
made. Some comparisons are here noted with other items of 
school support. From 1855 to 1864, district taxation was less 
than the income from the school funtl. Since then, it has ex- 
ceeded the income from the school fund. The year 1864 may 
be taken then as the point at which local interest produces enough 
action to do more than the state was doing — a sort of balancing 
point, in fact. As compared with the estimated income from the 
town deposit fund, the district tax seems to have equalled it by 
1856, and rapiiliy outdistanced it thereafter. (See Appendix, 
Table IV) From a comparison of Tables III, IV and IX (Ap- 
pendix) it will be seen that as far as resources per capita were con- 
cerned, local taxation from 1861 became the most important 
factor in school support, and that the great portion of this for 
some time came from district taxation. 

Besides the means of support thus far described, there were 
other kinds utilized in varying degrees from time to time. For 
example, "voluntary contributions" appears as an item on two or 
three occasions. Yet the important sources of school support 
are the ones already described: school fund, town deposit fund, 
local funds, town and district taxation, and tuition. 

The manner in which the state distributed the state school tax, 



Connecticut 41 

the school fund income, and the town tax, was such that only a 
minimum of local activity, if any, was aroused. That the state 
could have stimulated local communities more is shown by ex- 
perience of the state in encouraging the development of district 
school libraries. In the general codification of 1856, a provision 
authorized the state treasurer to pay ten dollars to any school 
district for a school library, if the district would raise a like sum for 
the same purpose. From 1857 to 1868 the state paid out $11,- 
960.71 for this purpose, and the districts raised at least $13,667.23. 
Except for the years of the Civil War, the number of districts 
availing themselves of this aid averaged 200 each year, or about 
one-eighth of all the districts. These facts show that the state 
could have done more with other funds, as well as with aid for 
school libraries. (Data compiled from Conn. Rept. for 1857-1869) 



DEVELOPMENT OF FREE SCHOOLS 

Growth of Free Schools and Movement Against the 
Rate-Bill 

The state of Connecticut established free schools by the law 
of 1868; but it had had many free schools before that time. 
Even in colonial times some schools seem to have been free from 
the tuition charge. The action of New Haven on December 25, 
1641, is an example. The only means of support mentioned is 
a "yearly allowance — to be given it out of the common stock of 
the town," and it is expressly referred to as a free school in the 
sentence, " It is ordered that a. free school be set up in this town." 
The historians of education in Connecticut and of New Haven, 
as well as writers on general history of Connecticut, have always 
referred to this as a free school, in the sense of being free from 
tuition. There is also the action of New Haven of 1644 concern- 
ing a free school of grammar school type. In 1652, the action 
concerning Mr. James specifically mentions two types of sup- 
port — "ten pounds a year out of the treasury and the rest he 
might take of the parents of the children." This action says 
nothing about a free school; those of 1641 and 1644 did use the 
term. The action of the Court of Elections of 1657 again men- 
tions these two types of school support, and says nothing about 
a free school. The law of 1650 is silent on this point. The act 
of 1676 mentions the use of the rate, as means of school support, 
but leaves way open for other methods. The law of 1680, to 
establish two grammar schools in Hartford and New Haven, 
provides for their support without tuition. There also occurs 
the passage to keep "the towne schools in the several townes as 
distinct from the free school." In the general law of 1700 for 
the use of rate and tuition, nothing is said about free schools. 
All of these examples show that when the term "free school" 
was used, no use of tuition was mentioned. Another fact shoald 
be remembered in this connection, and that is the practice of the 
people of England from whence these people originally came. 
This whole matter has been studied by Leach ("English Schools 
42 



Connecticut 43 

at the Reformation") who concluded that a "free school" was 
one charging no tuition.^ These two sets of facts seem to point 
to but one conclusion, viz., that when the colonists of Connec- 
ticut used the term "free school" in their laws and educational 
practices, they meant a school free from tuition charges. 

The colonial law of 1650 regulating apprenticeship made no 
provision for public support of this type of education. A com- 
prehensive poor law was enacted in 1786. This provided for 
limited compulsory support of paupers, and compulsory appren- 
ticeship for "any poor children in any such town that live idly, 
or are exposed to want and distress," but it made no specific 
provision for public support of such apprenticeship. (Conn. 
Laws, 1786, 343-344) If, however, poor children had been 
found who should have been indentured as apprentices, and 
if no master could be found to care for them by an ordinary 
contract, what would have been done? It seems very probable 
that such cases would have been handled according to English 
traditions, and as they were actually handled in some other 
colonies. If so, the town would have been called upon to 
pay a fee, probably five pounds, to some person who became 
master to the child or children. While no specific provision for 
such support existed, it may be that apprenticeship was to a 
very slight degree supported from the public purse.^ And, if so, 
it constituted a means of free education for children of the poor. 
For the period from the Revolution to 1840 we find some little 
indirect evidence of the possible existence of free schools. The 
great dependence placed on the State School Fund during this 
period seems to point to the conclusion that practically nothing 
else was used to support schools. Such scanty information as 
comes to us from this period indicates: (1) that teachers' wages 
constituted practically all of the school expense (fuel usually 
being contributed) and that teachers' wages were very low 
(See Appendix, Table V) ; (2) that practically all of the teachers' 
wages were paid from the income of the School Fund; (3) that 
the income of the School Fund was sufficient to maintain a school 
for three or four months. If these suppositions are true, many 
of the district schools would be free from tuition because the 
income from the School Fund was sufficient to maintain them. 



' The writer recognizes that not all historians agree with Leach. 
^Seybolt assumes that such was the case in Connecticut but gives no exam- 
ples of it. See Bibliography for title. 



44 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Hjirnard, in (lOinjiioiitinK on ilio law of 1788, makes the following 
Ktaienieni: "No tinu; being s])ecifie(l, the schools were soon 
kept open just long enough to use up the public money drawn 
from s(at(^ and society /y/wr/.s, and then (closed as public schools." 
(Conn. lU'pt., 1853, 145) In 1821, the state-wide tax was abol- 
ished, and seemingly complete dependence placed upon the in- 
come from school funds as a means of school support. At 
no time during the early part of the nineteenth century were 
communities required to maintain schools longer than such funds 
would ke(>]) them. 'rhes(> fads then seem to point to the con- 
clusion that pu})lic s(thools were free in many cases, but supported 
only as long as the income from school funds would keep them 
going. However, (his did not prevent a private school of the 
same grade, charging tuition, to appear as soon as the public 
free school had closed. One should not be led to believe that 
free schools were universal in Connecticut during this i)erio(l. 
'rher(> was too mwh legislation concerned with rate-bills and 
tiiilion during this period to allow such a presumption. The 
laws of 170(), the changes of 1810 and 1811, the fuel law of 1824, 
and the very comprehensive^ law of IKV.) are the evidences show- 
ing the legal right to use ttiition bills, and which, very probably, 
was wi(l(^ly enough used to r(>quire such laws. What would be 
the need of the law of 1824 if fuel bills were not actually used? 

From 1840 to 18()8 laws concerning tuition bills were enacted 
in 1850, 1858, 1850, 18()0, 18()2, 1803 and 1804. The need of 
mor(> support for schools than that furnished by income from 
funds, was answered by this series of laws, the permissive laws 
for district taxation, and i\w recpiired town-tax laws. In a great 
degree this was the period of the development of free schools 
supported largely by taxation. (See Ai)pentlix, Tables II, III, 
IV and IX) 

How did rate-bills and tuition actually aiTect the schools? 
Ui)on the answer would depend the reasons for a change. A 
school visitor of Prospect Society is (quoted as follows: 

"Many HcholiirH Htay awiiy from hc1uh)1 to avoid paying; l)alaiH'o of term 
bill. It is a wtcIcIuhI ])olicy (o (ax parcntH in pr()|)or(ion to the attendance of 
their children. It. iH ii preiniuin on non-.-ittendaiue. Societies nhould bo 
obliged to see that every child is in school at least fo\ir nu)nths to l)e entitled 
to public school money for that child, and be obliged to continue a free school 
four months in sununer and winter." (Coim. Com. Sch. Jour., 1834-1840, p. 
222) 



Connecticut 45 

The editor of the American Quarterly Register (1833) declared 
that taxation was a l)(^tt(M- inciuis of scliool support, b(M!aiise it 
rornov(Hl the burden of sciiool sui)port to i)rop(!rty. {Am. Quar. 
Ii('(j., May, 1833, 297) In th(! same year that the first com- 
prehensive rate-bill statutes was enacted, II(^nry Barnard, then 
secretary to the lioard of ( -oniitiissioncirs of (^ottiiuon Schools, 
argued against such a law in no un(!(!rtain terms.' His statement 
seems to be; oru; of tlx; veiy first examjjles of (l(;t(Tmin(;d opposi- 
tion to rat(!-bills. lb; i)la('(Ml stress upon tin; evil viiv.vX upon 
attendance, the incr(!as(i of th(; tuition of thos(; who did attc^nd 
school, and the; nilation of th<! i)rivat(! s(^h()ols to tlu; systciin. 
Lat(!r in th(! same year, ho, af!;ain dec^lanul that tlu; rat(!-bill sys- 
t(!m encouraged the wealthy to patronize private schools, and 
estimat(Hl that 10,000 childniii w(u'(! attending such s(^hools. He 
furth(!r d(H'lar(!(l that Ik; found su<^h schools opposing improve- 
ments in th(! i)ublic schools.'' TIk; Hoard of ('oinmissioners of 
Common Schools (^xjjresscMl simil;u' vic^ws but in a more guarded 
statement.^ In 183H, (Jovernor l^^lsworih urgcid that, the money 

> "It JH difficult, t(» fnuno ii liiw io operate more unfavoral)Iy, uiKiciiuilly, and 
in many inHf,an(t(!H, more; ()|»i)n!Hniv(! (linn Huh. Tficrt; is not only tlu; ordi- 
nary i)C(;uniary int(T(«t afcaiiiHt it, hut it iH in('r(!aHed from tli(^ fact tliat all 
the al)atemcntK for j)oor childnm muHt conn; upon tlicm wlio H((nd to hc^IiooIh. 
Ajrjiin, many of tlK^m who an; thuH r»!((uir(!(l to pay th(( hilJH of tluur 
poorer nci)z;hl)orH, arc, juHt al)l(! to |)ay Ourir own, and the, addition of a Hin)z;lo 
I)cnny Ix^yond that Ih opprcHHiv(^, ho lon^; an \\\v hurdcn in not nharcd by the 
whole cormnunity. . . . A^ain it in an indu<-<!m('nt to parcntH to k(H!p 
their children at home, on any tridinj^ d(Mnaiid for their wirviccw -for in ho 
doinf^, there iH no i)ecuniary Iohh HUHtaiiKid; an on Wh'. othcT hand, tluur Hchool 
hill in hy ho mu(^h diminiHlK^d. . . . The une(iual operation of tlu; pr(!Hent 
mode of (lonlinuin^!; the; hc^IiooIh hc(;om(iH more; o|)pn^sHiv(! an privates hcIiooIh 
increaw! — and a lar|j;(;r numlxtr of the w<!a,lthier m<imh(TH of Hoci(!ly withdraw 
from the pul)lic w^IiooIh. It thuH tlirowH all tlu; extra expenw; of th(i H<'hoolH, 
aH far an the poor ar(! conc-erned, upon that (^laHH, who (uI.Ikt from j)uhh'c-Hpirit, 
or oth(!r motiv(!H, w^nd tJmir (rhildr(^n to tlu; (roinmon hcIiooIh. Ah to thin |)or- 
tion of our nchool law, 1 hii,v(! fctund hut on(i oijinion |)r(!vailin)i; amon^ the 
moKt intellinc^nt men practically ac(|uaint(!d with the workin^f of it; (hat it Ih 
radically defective." (('oim. Hei)t., lKr)5, 2\-'12. (Quoted hy I'hilhrick) 
(Conn. Coin. ,Sch. Jour., 1H:W, 1: Ki'i) 

^ "The prcHent mode of HU|)por( inn common HchooJH, i)rinci[)ally hy pufjiic 
fundH and hy taxation on the Hcholarn, haH o[)crat(!d to cncroiiraKO irmn of prop- 
erty to ahandon them and patronize; private hcIiooIh. Judninf:; from oilicial 
returnn . . . there cannot he leHH than 1(),(K)() children under 10 yeara, 
in [)rivate schoolB, at an aggregate expense of not Ichh Oian $'2()0,00() for tuition 
alone. ... 

"Nay, more, I have found an antafiionint inteniHt arraycid againnt every 
effort to improve th(; common H(;hoolH." (H;iriiar<l, Com. Srh. Jour., I, p. \7'.i) 

' "On the Huhject of j)rivate hcIiooIh, which have greatly increaHcd in recent 
yearn, the Committee feel hardly i)n![)ared (o ex|)reHH a decided oi)inion, CHpe- 
cially with regard to the genera) inlluence which they will eventually have on 
the common schoolH. 'i'hat tluH influence, at present, in certain circumHtances, 



46 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

spent in tuition at private schools be united with the support 
given the public schools and thus enable the children of the poor 
to obtain better education. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 163-5) 

The effects of rate-bill schools and of consolidated free schools 
were illustrated by the conditions existing in certain districts, 
and the improvements due to consolidation and support without 
rate-bills. Private schools disappeared, attendance in public 
schools increased, the average expense per pupil was lessened, 
and the educational advantages were open to all whether rich 
or poor.^ 

The secretary of the board declared that the city schools of 
Connecticut were inferior to those in other states, because the 
outside schools "were free, and children of all classes . . . are 
found in the same schoolroom." (Rept. Sec. of Bd., 1842, 26-27) 

In 1842, Henry Barnard, as secretary of the Board of Com- 
missioners of Common Schools, again attacked the rate-bill 
system and advocated support by taxation, in the following words: 

"To place these schools on their old footing, and interest the community 
in their welfare, I have advocated the abandonment of quarter bills, or charge 
per scholar, and making property, whether it represented children or not, 
chargeable with their support. This is the cardinal idea of the free school 
system, and with the aid now furnished from the school fund, which is appro- 



is injurious, they have no doubt." (Address of Bd. of Comm. of Common 
Schools, 1838, 23) 

^ "In 1838, there were four districts with 885 persons over 4 and under 16 
years of age. Of this number 276 attended the common schools. The poor, 
and those only who felt but little interest in the education of their children 
sent to them. The schoolhouses were old and very much out of repair. The 
studies were those ordinarily pursued in the common school. There was no 
uniformity of books, and the teachers were constantly changing. There was 
no money raised for their support, beyond the avails of the public funds. . . . 
At this time there were 8 or 9 private schools taught by well-qualified and 
well-paid teachers, and including the children of those parents who cared most 
for education. The aggregate expense for tuition alone, in these schools, was 
three times as great as the whole expense of the common schools. 

"In 1839 after several public meetings, an entirely new system of public 
schools was adopted. The four districts were made into one society. Four 
primary departments . . . and one high school were established. . . . 
In 1842, out of 849 children between the ages of 4 and 16, 675 were connected 
with the public schools and among them are (were) the children of the best 
educated and wealthiest families of the city. Nearly all the private schools 
have given up, and a saving effected this way of nearly $4,000.00 a year. The 
entire expense of the public schools is nearly $2,000.00 less than was expected 
on the private schools in 1838 and the average expense per scholar is less than 
it was at that time. The crowning glory of the whole is — that it is a practical 
illustration of what can he done to make the common schools good enough for the 
richest, and cheap enough for the poorest, and thus to make the advantage of a 
good education common to the rich and the poor." (Rept. Sec. of Bd., 1842, 26) 



Connecticut 47 

priated for the equal benefit of all people, this charge cannot be considered 
burdensome. This too is the practice of every city which has an efficient 
system of schools. The practical abandonment of it in our cities, has led to 
withdrawal of the children, and the active interest, of the wealthy, from the 
private schools. Many parents who now send to private schools, would send 
to the common schools, if they were taxed annually for their support. . . ." 
(Kept. Bd. of Comm., 1842, 25) 

The school visitors gave evidence concerning the effects of 
rate-bills and desire for changes. In the school report of 1846, 
statements against rate-bills were made by visitors from the fol- 
lowing societies: Greenwich second; Norwalk; Ridgefield first; 
Stamford first; Brooklyn; Ashford first; Killingly; Plainfield; 
Thompson; Voluntown; Torrington first; Torrington (Torring- 
f ord) ; Warren ; Winchester second ; and Westbrook. Their state- 
ments included the following: (1) rate-bills encouraged non- 
attendance; (2) they make collection of salary by teachers more 
difficult; (3) an equal amount of educational privilege was denied 
many children. Others recommended taxation for schools, and 
better methods of distributing the school fund money. One 
district was reported as having a surplus of $100 from the school 
fund income, while others were compelled to charge rates of tuition 
varying (in one town) from $1.34 per year to $13.52. Many 
urged that each community be required to tax themselves for 
school support as a condition to receiving the state school money. 
One said that the great fund "lulled the people into a state of 
indifference." (Conn. Kept., 1846, 83, 85, 90, 92, 99, 102, 106, 
107, 112, 113, 133, 135, 141, 151) 

In the same year the superintendent of common schools pub- 
lished a list of eleven defects in education, as he saw them in 
the visitors' reports. In none of these did he mention free 
schools, but he did urge an agitation for taxation of local com- 
munities for school support, the abolition of small districts, to 
make common schools better able to compete with private 
schools, and to distribute the public money to help weak dis- 
tricts and increase attendance. (Conn. Rept., 1846, 8-13) 

A brief mention of the monitorial system as used in the schools 
in Middletown occurs in 1846. At an earlier time it was in use 
also in New Haven. Governor Wolcott recommended its adop- 
tion as early as 1825. In spite of the fact that it was a cheap 
device for reaching many pupils, no evidence has been found to 
indicate its wide use in Connecticut. When its use was the 



48 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

fashion, Connecticut was relying very largely on the school fund; 
wlicTi Connecticut became aroused to the need of greater school 
facilities and taxation, the monitorial system had ceased to be 
the fad of the moment. (Conn. Kept., 1840; 1853, 151) An 
appeal to the real utility of free schools and the fact that they 
could be established was made by the superintendent in 1849: 

"In Worcester, Lowell, Salem, Roxbury, and Cambridge, and many other 
eilieH correspondiiin to our own, in respect to population, free schools are estab- 
lished, of so elevated a cluira(^((T, as to coini)el even the wealthy to abandon 
private schools." (Conn. Ke[)t., 1849, 97) 

In 1846, the legislative joint standing committee on educa- 
tion recommended a list of eight important changes in the school 
system of the staie; but they did not mention taxation or free 
schools. They did, however, recommend the abolition of school 
societies. (Conn, llept., 1847, 8-21) 

A study of the governors' messages up to 1850 reveals the fact 
that not one of them had said a word about free schools. Most 
of them referred to the school fund, one recommended a small 
district tax (1831), and they usually urged that the legislatures 
consider the state superintendent's report. 

(^ne of th(^ advances made in the state during this decade was 
the change (^ifcH'ted at Hartford in 1847. Horace Bushnell cham- 
pioned the cause of popular education there with telling effect. 
H(Miry Barnard came back into the state at the request of friends 
of this movement and spoke and wrote in favor of better educa- 
tional conditions at Hartford. A pamphlet prepared by him 
and used in this campaign is given, in substance, in his annual 
rejmrt as superitit.endent , for 1850. As a result of tlie campaign, 
Hartford voted "to establish a free school for instruction in the 
higher branches of an T^nglish and the elementary branches of a 
classical education, for all the male and female children of suita- 
ble age acquirements in this society, who may wish to avail them- 
selves of its advantages." The old colonial school of Hartford 
had been previously t ransformed into a sort of an academy. Now 
this ancient foundation was incorporated into the new high school 
and the income from its endowment used for the support of a 
classical teacher. (Brown, 312) The law of 1090, which estab- 
lished the old grammar schools here and at New Haven, provided 
for support without tuition. Yet it is the grammar school upon 
the Hopkins foundation which seems to have survived, which in 



Connecticut 49 

some of its period was a free school. This school would represent, 
in its tradition, the ideal of a free school, as well as exemplifying 
in one locality and institution the three great stages in the evolu- 
tion of American secondary education. (8teiner, 25-28; 50-52) 
As a sort of finale to the development of this decade, came the 
establishment of free teachers' institutes, supported by the 
state (1848), and the establishment of the State Normal School 
(1849). The institutes were established by a resolution of the 
General Assembly which provided as follows: 

"That the Superintendent of Common Schools be, and hereby ia, directed 
to emp)loy suitable persons to hold, at not more than sixteen convenient places 
in the different counties of the State, in the months of September and October, 
annually, schools of teachers, not exceeding one week each, for the f)urpose of 
instructing in the best modes of governing and teaching our common schools; 
— and the compensation of the persons so employed shall not exceed three 
dollars per day, in full, for services and expenses for the time occupied in teach- 
ing and traveling to and from the several places where the schools may be 
held — which compensation shall be paid from the civil list funds of the state." 
(Conn. Ilept., 1849, 30) 

The superintendent, in his notice announcing these "schools 
of teachers," said, "the schools will be open free of charge to all 
who propose to teach in our public schools. ..." (Ibid., 
31) With some degree of truth this may be called the first free 
school law of the state. 

The normal school was established by a law of June 22, 1849. 
This law provided that the state should pay the expenses "in- 
curred by the trustees"; and that the number of pupils should 
"not exceed two hundred and twenty." "To all pu{)ils so ad- 
mitted to the school, the tuition and the privileges of the school 
shall be gratuitous." (Conn. Rept., 1850, 82) If we call the 
law of the preceding year for the establishment of teachers' insti- 
tutes the first free school law, then this becomes the second. 

This decade was one of marked progress compared with the 
preceding. The uniting of districts in urban communities began 
under the short-lived law of 1841. Henry Barnard appeared as 
the advocate of taxation as a means of school support, many of 
the school visitors were urging taxation for schools, the Hartford 
high school had been established as a free school, and the state 
had begun to furnish free facilities for the training of common 
schoolteachers. Much yet remained to be done; pubhc opinion 
was yet too inert. 



50 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

The Movement for Free Schools, 1850-1856 

The next decade was marked by a great advance in public 
opinion and by some very important legislative changes, chief of 
which was the school code of 1856. The events leading up to 
this enactment will be described. Henry Barnard, as principal 
of the Normal School and superintendent of common schools, 
carried out an extensive propaganda for better schools. In 
1850-1851, this work was conducted by Barnard and seven other 
persons. They made more than two hundred addresses in at 
least one hundred different societies during the first year. (Conn. 
Kept., 1851, 4) In 1852-1853, the propaganda was more exten- 
sive and intensive, affecting teachers, school patrons, pupils, 
publication of reports, and cooperation of more newspapers than 
previously. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 3-4) It is not known that 
these men made free schools one of their important specific issues^ 
but it is known that their work was to better schools in any re- 
spect. In 1854, they urged "consolidation of districts," and 
"support of schools by tax on property." Barnard was suc- 
ceeded in 1855 by Philbrick, who continued the propaganda with 
the aid of three helpers. (Ibid., 1855, 37-38; 80-88) The Con- 
necticut Common School Journal was used to great advantage. 
It published facts about schools of Connecticut and other states, 
articles from school officials and private citizens, cooperated 
with the state superintendent and State Teachers' Association 
in urging better schools supported by public taxation. 

Some of the larger cities of the state made advances, and estab- 
lished free schools. This had its effect. An association com- 
posed of school committees and friends of education, held at 
South Coventry in 1851, petitioned the legislature for changes, 
chief of which were the abohtion of tuition and support of schools 
entirely by public funds and taxation. They submitted with 
their petition a proposed law for reorganization of schools and 
school support. (Conn. Rept., 1851, 79-80) 

An essay written by Noah Porter in the previous decade was 
republished in the report for 1850, and otherwise given wide 
circulation. It urged free schools supported by public funds 
and taxation. 1 



i"The doctrine should be understood and proclaimed in Connecticut, that 
the property of the whole community may rightfully be taxed, for the support 
of public education. It should be proclaimed because it is a true doctrine. 



Connecticut 51 

In 1854, Mr. H. H. Barney, commissioner of common schools 
of Ohio, addressed the Connecticut State Teachers' Association, 
and strongly urged free schools. (Conn. Com. Sch. Jour., 1854, 
195-196) The commissioner of the School Fund (Mason Cleve- 
land) in 1854 declared against tuition and rate-bills as means of 
school support, and described some of their injurious effects. 
He recommended that all districts be required to raise, by a prop- 
erty tax, an amount equal to one-third that received from the 
School Fund.' 

In 1851-1852, Governor Seymour condemned the loss of local 

The pecuniary interests of a community like our own, to say nothing of those 
interests that are higher, are deeply concerned in the question whether all 
shall be educated. They are vitally concerned too, that all shall be well edu- 
cated. The property of the rich whether they have children or not, may and 
should be taxed, because the security of that property demands that this insur- 
ance should be effected upon it. The tax which they pay is only the premium 
on this insurance. Besides, it is cheaper as well as more grateful, to pay a 
tax for the support of schools, than it is to pay the same for jails, and poor- 
houses. In Connecticut this right is denied and disputed. A tax may be 
levied on a district for the construction and repair of schoolhouses but when 
a sum is to be raised additional to that which is received from public funds, it 
is left to those who have children to send to school. The consequences of this 
system are most mischievous. The summer school becomes a select school 
instead of a public school. Or perhaps to make it open to all, for a month or 
two, the allowance from the public treasury is eked out by the greatest possible 
extenuation. . . . When this 'short allowance' is consumed, the children 
of the laboring poor, at once the most numerous and the most needy, are re- 
tained at home, because the parents can or will not pay the capitation tax. 
. . . This bad and unequal system is sustained from two sets of causes — 
the opposition of so many tax-payers to a system of property taxation — unac- 
countable, the opposition of these who are tax-voters but not tax-payers, who 
are set against such a system because it tends to build up schools for the rich! 
More than one instance can be named, in which this doctrine has been indus- 
triously circulated by some cunning miser among his poorer neighbors, and 
they have gone to the school meeting to vote against all expense, not dreaming 
that their advisers were trembling in their shoes. . . . This is unequal, 
anti-republican, and wrong; it ought to be made odious. It should be held up 
in all its unfairness. The right of the town or school society to tax itself should 
be embraced by all parties." (Conn. Rept., 1850, Appendix L) (Noah 
Porter) 

1 "Already, as you are aware, a great number, if not a majority of the dis- 
tricts . . . are compelled to raise money in some way to enable them to 
comply with the provisions of the law now in force, which requires them to 
support a school not less than four months in each year, as a condition of their 
participation in the benefits of the fund. The course adopted in most cases 
is to levy a tax or assessment upon the scholars belonging to the school, in 
proportion to the time they attend, which not infrequently induces the poorer 
classes to withdraw their children, at a time when this continuance is of the 
highest importance to their mental advancement. I regret to add that the 
instances are not rare, in which the same course is pursued by those who are 
abundantly able to continue the children after the public money is expended; 
the result of which is to impose on a few the burden of supporting the school 
the allotted time, in order to secure their proportion of the school fund." (Rept. 
Com. Sch. Fund, 1854, 11) 



52 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

initiative in school support due to the School Fund and declared 
against control of schools by societies. Most important was the 
recommendation that local school units of control levy tax suffi- 
cient with other funds to keep schools open at least eight months 
each year. (House Jour., 1851, 30; 1852, 20-21; 1853, 14) Gov- 
ernor Button (1854) called attention of the legislature to the 
backward condition of the schools and recommended, among 
other things, a tax for school support. (House Jour., 1854, 24-26) 
The first recorded instance of a governor sanctioning free schools 
occurred in 1855. Governor W. F. Minor, in that year, said to 
the legislature, "I shall cheerfully cooperate with you in making 
our common schools free; for such, in my opinion, the true policy 
of our government requires that they should be." (Reports to 
General Assembly, 1855, 7) The next year the same governor 
strongly urged a system of free schools.' 

The work of the Superintendent of Common Schools assumed 
a leading role. The general work of Barnard has been mentioned. 
His exact attitude towards the problems of rate-bills and free 
schools should be stated. In 1845, he was an unqualified oppo- 
nent of rate-bills, and advocate for free schools. In 1851, he 
changed his attitude and advocated the use of rate-bills by dis- 
tricts and societies.'' In 1853, he recommended, among other 
things, a tax equal to one-third the amount received from public 
funds, distribution of public money on attendance basis with a 
bonus of $50.00 for bettering certain conditions, use of public 

' "No argument is required to convince us of the absolute necessity of edu- 
cation for the masses — a necessity obviously greater now than in an earlier 
period of the existence of the State. If we could elevate the character of the 
State, sustain the intelligence of its citizens, promote virtue and morality, 
and add stability and permanency to its laws and institutions, we must fur- 
nish to all, without regard to their means, the rudiments of an education which 
will qualify them to be good and honest citizens, upright and honorable rulers. 

"I do not refer to a system which enables a portion of our children, and only 
those whose means will admit to attain to a higher degree of excellence in intel- 
lectual culture and scientific attainment, but to that system of public instruc- 
tion which will be free and accessible to every one, whatever his condition or 
circumstances may be; such system will conduce to make a virtuoas and intelli- 
gent population eminently essential to the correct administration of law, for 
however well and guarded the laws of any community may be for the preserva- 
tion of the rights of person and property, it is clear that those rights are inad- 
equately protected, unless the tone of public sentiment is in harmony with the 
laws." (Reports to Gen. Assembly, 1856, 13) 

' "Districts and societies should be authorized to establish a rate bill or tui- 
tion, to be paid by parents or guardians of children at school, graduated accord- 
ing to the class of school, and in no way oppressive to the poor, and diminishing 
to each family according to the number of children attending school the 
same term." (Conn. Rept., 1851, 47) 



Connecticut 53 

money for salaries only, districts raising a tax of 25 cents per 
pupil to receive an equal amount from the income of the Town 
Deposit Fund, and again recommended the use of rate-bills and 
tuition. 1 The same year he advised the people of Thompson ville 
to use rate-bills. 2 In 1850, Mr. Barnard, in describing a high 
school said, "A public high school is not necessarily a free school. 
It may be supported by a fund, a public tax, or an assessment or 
rate of tuition per scholar, or by any combination of these modes," 
and then in a lengthy statement he urged the estabhshment of 
such schools. (Conn. Rept., 1850, 25-32)3 

In 1855, Mr. Philbrick, as superintendent, took up the dis- 
cussion of rate-bills. Referring to the rate-bill statute, he said 
the he regarded it "as the most objectionable feature" of the 
school law. In a circular to school visitors, sent out the same 
year, he again condemned the rate-bill system and urged taxa- 
tion, (See Appendix for Philbrick's statements) In 1856, Phil- 
brick published in his report Horace Mann's article on free 
schools. This may have served to counteract the effect of Bar- 
nard's change of attitude. The sentiment which had been grad- 
ually forming found expression in a memorial sent to the legis- 
lature by the State Teachers' Association, in 1855. This me- 
morial asked for twelve important changes in the school laws, 
among which were the following: (1) distribution of school 
fund income on basis of average attendance and approved school- 
houses; (2) abolition of districts of less than 20 children; (3) 
introduction of industrial training in schools; (4) change in con- 

1" Every school district, or district committee, when authorized by the dis- 
trict, may estabUsh a rate-bill or tuition, to be paid by the parents or guardians 
of the children attending school, and graduate the same according to the grade 
of school which the child may attend; provided, that the rate shall be fixed 
before the opening of the school in any term; and provided further that the 
sum to be paid shall not exceed one dollar for a term of three months, or in 
that proportion for the year in any grade of common schools; and provided 
also, that no child shall be excluded from any common school, to which he 
would be otherwise entitled to attend in consequence of the inability of his 
parents or guardians to pay any school tax or rate." (Conn. Rept., 1853, 169- 
171) 

2 "This might be raised by a rate-bill, payable by the parents or guardians 
of the pupils, of one dollar for each, and the balance should be raised by a tax 
on the grand, list of the district, as is now provided for by law. The rate-bill 
should be so small that the poorest family can pay it cheerfully, and it should be 
collected in advance." (Conn. Rept., 1853, 73-74) 

3 The reasons for Barnard's position appear in a discussion between himself 
and George S. Boutwell, at a meeting of the American Institute of Instruc- 
tion at Springfield (Mass.), August 1^22, 1856. The gist of this discussion ia 
given in the Appendix. 



54' Development of Free Schools in the United States 

trol by societies; (5) public to furnish text books for children of 
poor; (6) a commission to revise the school laws; (7) "To amend 
the law relating to the mode of supporting schools so as to abolish 
rate or quarter bills altogether, or provide that the amount shall be 
determined before the opening of school, and to be collected in ad- 
vance." This was signed by Henry Barnard, E. F. Strong and 
E. B. Huntington representing the Association. {Com. Sch. Jour., 
1855, 309-311) 

When the legislature convened in 1856, action resulted in the 
appointment of a commission to codify the school laws. In the 
meantime, the people of Fairfield County had passed resolutions 
asking for free schools. {Com. Sch. Jour., 1856, 118) The legis- 
lative commission made a series of recommendations, including 
taxation and free schools. The State Teachers' Association 
declared by resolution that "while we approve, very generally, 
of the proposed changes and amendments, we regard with special 
satisfaction those proposing the establishment of school libraries 
and free schools." {Com. Sch. Jour., 1856, 188) 

The school code of 1856 resulted, but it was a disappointment 
in some respects. It abolished school societies and transferred 
their duties to the town and district; it established a one-mill 
state tax for schools, and enacted another rate-bill statute. So 
after years of careful planning, of hard work, of creation of favor- 
able opinion, the hope that schools would be made free was 
blasted. What seemed to be almost certain victory turned out 
to be a partial and temporary defeat. 

The Movement for Free Schools, 1856-1870 

Notwithstanding the temporary defeat of 1856, from that 
time three lines of development continued. Discussion and 
agitation continued to create favorable sentiment. School sup- 
port continued to develop, and schools, in larger numbers, 
became free. The development of favorable opinion will be 
considered first. 

The Development of Favorable Opinion among School Visitors 
From the visitor of New Canaan came the following: 

"The visitor is very sensible that the great evil of the system lies in the prac- 
tice of raising money by tuition bills, made out according to the time of pupils' 
actual attendance; thus virtually paying a bounty on absences." (Conn. 
Kept., 1855, 105) 



Connecticut 55 

The visitor from New Haven reported that rate-bills had been 
used for many years, particularly from 1835 to 1849. How- 
ever, then the city was levying taxes for schools. (Conn. Rept., 

1856, 61) The visitor at Plymouth (1857) said: 

"There are at least 150 children withm the Hmits of this school society, 
between the ages of 4 and 16, that have not attended either a public or private 
school during the year, for until our public schools are free to all, many youths 
of poor parentage will grow up in ignorance and vice, and not only they but 
the community will suffer a loss which money can never repair." (Conn. Rept., 

1857, 65) 

This referred to conditions in 1856, for there were no school soci- 
eties in 1857. Bridgeport reported that rate-bills were abolished. 
(Conn. Rept., 1859, 90) In 1856, Voluntown had appropriated 
the one-half of the income from the Deposit Fund which was 
not granted to the schools by law, to the use of the schools, in 
order to evade levying the one-mill tax required by the new law. 
The school visitor, in commenting on this action said: "We say 
it to their shame ... if there is a town in old Connecticut 
that needs enlightment on common schools that is Voluntown." 
(Conn. Rept., 1855, 90) 

In 1860, expressions concerning the question of free schools 
and related problems appeared as follows: Chatham — people 
unwilling to tax themselves for better schools; Middlebury — 
abolish rate-bills and establish taxation; Orange — our people 
encourage shifting of teachers because it is cheaper and it relieves 
them from taxes; Seymour — establish free schools, by property 
taxation, extensive enough to enable a poor boy to enter the 
University; Windsor — "Rich men have very often, by a narrow 
and mistaken policy in regard to schools, depressed and dam- 
aged their property"; Thompson — a healthy interest in better 
schools exists; Bridgeport — too many small, weak districts, and 
poor private schools; New London — free education is most 
economical. (Conn. Rept., 1860, 69, 72, 75, 77, 79, 80, 93, 94) 

In 1861, the superintendent of common schools asked the visit- 
ors, "Is any further legislation, in your opinion, necessary to 
promote the interests of common schools?" Twenty-eight 
repHed that no legislation was necessary, "Of those which recom- 
mended an alteration in the law, the greatest unanimity was 
upon the subject of free schools." Chester, Chnton, Colchester, 
Colebrook, Kent, Middlebury, Norwalk, Plymouth, Redding, 



56 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Rocky Hill, Stafford, West Hartford, and Woodbury were in- 
cluded in the list — thirteen in all. Nine recommended a better 
law for the distribution of pubHc money. (Conn. Rept., 18G1, 
36-44) 

In 1852, the superintendent asked the visitors, "What in your 
opinion is needed to make our common schools more efficient?" 
Bloomfiold, Bridgeport, Brookficld, Durham, East Hartford, 
Madison, Norwalk, and Stamford directly recommended free 
schools. Several others recommended increased taxation as a 
means of school support. (Conn. Rept., 1862, 12-21) Their 
reports were not published in 1863. In 1864, only three or four 
published reports recommended increased taxation and free 
schools. (Conn. Rept., 1864, 73-104) In the published reports 
for 1865, the following towns recommend free schools: Canter- 
bury, Huntington, Meriden and Putnam. Some few others 
urged more taxation. (Conn. Rept., 1865, 43-83) In 1866, the 
following condemned either rate-bills or advocated free schools : 
Barkhamstcad, Colebrook, Cromwell, Litchfield, Oxford, Stam- 
ford, Torrington, and Watertown. Cromwell and Litchfield re- 
ported their schools practically free, and Torrington reported that 
one district had levied tax to make its schools free. (Conn. Rept., 

1866, 183-223) In 1867, Bridgeport, Danbury, Morris, Oxford, 
Redding, and Southington, recommended either increased taxa- 
tion or free schools, while many others condemned the system 
of small, weak districts, and urged consolidation. (Conn. Rept., 

1867, Appendix B) In 1868, either more free school sentiment 
existed, or more of the reports of these men were published. The 
following list includes towns whose visitors recommended free 
schools or support by taxation: Bridgeport, Canterbury, Dan- 
bury, Darien, Farmington, Haddam, Lebanon, Meriden, New 
London, Norfolk, Salisbury, Stafford, Stonington, and Oxford. 
Others urged consolidation. Of the above list Bridgeport, Dan- 
bury, Lebanon, and Stonington presented lengthy arguments to 
support their recommendations. In harmony with this was the 
report from Middlcfield that the town had voted to levy a "tax 
of one mill on the dollar for school purposes instead of four-tenths 
of a mill as required by law." (Conn. Rept., 1868, Appendix 
LIII-CXX) It is believed that this description does not rep- 
resent adequately the free school sentiment among the visitors, 
for when asked directly they responded well, and still further, it 



Connecticut 57 

is known that only extracts from their reports were pubhshed 
from year to year. In spite of these facts, the evidence shows 
that there was considerable development of free school senti- 
ment among these men. 

The School Fund Commissioner and Free Schools, 1856-1870 

This official occupied a position in which valuable information 
was constantly accessible. It was possible to use this to create 
public opinion. Each year he published a statement concern- 
ing the status of the fund. But not until 1868, did he speak 
about free schools. That year, Commissioner G. A. Paine urged 
the establishment of free schools and property taxation for school 
support. (Conn. Leg. Doc, 1868, Rept, Com., 5) 

The Governor of the State and Free Schools, 1856-1870 

In 1859, Governor William A. Buckingham, after setting forth 
the practices used in supporting schools said that "the policy of 
sustaining our schools by a tax on property is gaining favor, and 
may be regarded as nearly established." (Reports to Gen. As- 
sembly, 1859, 6-7) How near he was to the truth is shown by 
the following facts, computed from Tables II, III, and IX (Appen- 
dix). The School Fund contributed $1.30 per pupil, rate-bills 
produced $.37 per child, local taxation, required and voluntary, 
produced $1.49 per pupil, and but 252 districts out of 1,624 levied 
taxes. A year later (1860) he spoke a little more accurately: 
". . . 252 districts have estabUshed free schools — voluntarily 
laid a tax on property. . . . This number, I am confident 
would be increased, if the subject were, by law, brought before 
each district for consideration at its annual meeting." (House 
Jour., 1860, 25-43; Senate Jour., 1860, 23-40) In 1863, Buck- 
ingham referred to this matter again. During 1860-1870, all of 
the governors— Buckingham (1860-1865), Hawley (1866), Eng- 
Hsh (1867-1868), and Jewell (1869) had something to say about 
the general educational situation. But it was not until the leg- 
islative session of 1868 (May 6) that one of them — Governor Eng- 
lish — finally spoke directly concerning rate-bills and free schools. 
His words were as follows: 

" The board are unanimously of the opinion that the rate-bill system should 
be abolished, and the schools sustained at the common expense. It ia cer- 
tainly desirable that all the schools should be under a uniform system, and 



68 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

the fact that the free school plan has been generally adopted throughout the 
State, while the rate-bill system is becoming rather the exception than the 
rule, renders the change an easy and practical)le one at the present time. The 
very idea connected with a common school is, that it should be free, or sup- 
ported at the common exjienac, while the rate-bill is essentially a tuitional 
charge. The Report will be Ijcfore you and 1 commend the several recommen- 
dations therein urged to your favorable consideration." (Conn. Rept., 18G8, 
70; also Senate Jour., 1868, 44) 

Governor English also served on the committee "to stand as the 
representative of the friends of the public schools." (Conn. Rept., 
1868, 119) Such was the record of the governors of the state up 
to 18G8. 

The State Superintendent and the State Board of Education and 
Free Schools, 1856-1870 

In 1857, Mr. D. N. Camp became superintendent, and in his 
report for 1858 he attacked the system of school support and 
arguetl for free schools. He said the number of free schools dis- 
tricts was increasing, and that such districts had better schools. 
Yet he felt that it was not quite time to have an obligatory free 
school law. He called attention to the laws for school taxes 
which then gave permission to make schools free, and stated that 
gradual development under such laws was more stable and sat- 
isfactory than to force people to make their schools free. (See 
Appendix for complete statement from Conn. Rept., 1858, 11-13) 
In 1859, concerning free schools, he said: 

"During the past year a large number of the common schools have been 
made free schools. ... It will l)e found, almost without exception, that 
where the system of making the schools free by a property tax has been adopted, 
the schools are better, more permanent in their arrangements and more regu- 
larly attended than in those districts where rate-bills are still collected." (Conn. 
Rept., 1859, 36) 

In 1860, after reviewing the various enactments on rate-bills, 
he recommended that the subject receive the attention of the 
Assembly, but that the present law be changed as little as pos- 
sible. (Conn. Rept., 1860, 42-45) In his report for 1861, he 
reviewed the whole question of school support and free schools 
(pp. 26-35), pointed out the difficulties of the rate-bill system, 
and stated that "of the 54 towns whose school visitors recom- 
mended some alteration in the law, the number that recommended 
a law requiring free schools was greater than that advocating 



Connecticut 59 

any other alteration in the law." Said he, "I do not deem it 
necesfgary to submit in connection with these facts, any argu- 
ment in favor or against the system of free schools." He also 
sent a circular to the school visitors asking what changes they 
thought advisable in school laws, and published their replies, 
(pp. 36-44) The next year, Mr. Camp asked again of the school 
visitors, "What is needed to make our common schools more 
efficient?" and published their replies. (Conn. Kept., 1862, 12-21) 
He himself had nothing to say directly about rate-bills, or free 
schools. The next year, 1863, he discussed the various items of 
school support briefly, pointing out that some districts had free 
schools because they received enough from the income of funds 
to make them free for the required term with a cheap teacher. 
He collected statistics of attendance and showed that 9,213 pupils 
were attending private schools, many of whom were under 16 
years of age, while "more than ten thousand of the children enu- 
merated between 4 and 16 years of age are in no school whatever 
for any portion of the year." He reviewed the existing school 
laws, showed that less than half of the districts used rate-bills, 
and by concrete illustrations showed the evil results of the small 
district system. {Ibid., 1863, 9, 11-12, 44-51) The next year he 
said that more difficulty was encountered in collecting the rate- 
bills than all of the local taxes, and argued for public taxation 
for high school support. {Ibid., 1865, 8, 29-30) 

A year later Mr. D. C. Oilman became secretary of the newly 
established board of education. He published quite a complete 
list of agencies of secondary education, public and private — a 
fair picture of free and tuition schools of that grade. The dis- 
trict system in its glaring deficiencies was opposed. He gave 
the first concrete and valuable facts about the evils of non-attend- 
ance and child labor. The adoption of the high school, free or 
nearly so, was also advocated. {Ibid., 1866, 33, 43-54, 70-83, 
89-93) 

In 1867, the Rev. Birdsley Grant Northrop came upon the 
scene and was soon engaged in a campaign for free schools. His 
first report (1867) followed much the same form as that of Mr. 
Oilman and published about the same type of information. He 
at once organized at his office a real "State Educational Bureau" 
of information. In order he discussed the following problems: 



60 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

1 . Eviln of the System of the Smull School Districts. 

2. Education for the Neglected — Erni)loynient of Children in Factories. 

3. Supporl of Schools by a Tax on Properly. 

4. The Value of (Jraded and High Schools. 

Under the iliiid lic.'uliDfi; he recomineiided the abolition of all 
rat(!-bill laws, and the increase of the town tax to make the schools 
free. {Ibid., 1807, 75, 86-89) The next year, the campaign was 
led by Mr. Northrop to a successful issue. In his lectures in the 
state that ycvir, two of his subjects were rate-bills and free schools. 
He showed that the "percentage of average attendance in sum- 
mer is but 4.'i.2.5 and in winter only 47.25 per cent. Less than 
one-half of the children of the state are found — in our public 
schools." His first remedy recommended was to abolish the 
"odious rate-bill." lie pul)lish<>d tlu; nssolution of the Hartford 
Ministerial Association asking for free schools and property 
taxation. He gave thirty-three pages to a discussion of the rate- 
bill and printed th(> seventeen letters of state superintendents 
concrerning rate-bills and advocating free schools. These letters 
came from the following states: Michigan, Maine, Ohio, New 
York, N(!w Jersey, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hamp- 
shire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Not one writer among 
the seventeen favored rate-bills, and their statements, published 
throughout th(^ state, suicly helped to create favorable opinion. 
(Conn. Kept., 1808, 13, 17, 25, 37-71) The letters came in re- 
sponse to the following questionnaire: 

1. Arc your public schools free, or supported in i)art by a rate-bill? 

2. If free, how long have they been so? 

3. What is the effecit of free schools, (compared with tuition schools, upon 
attendance, the interest of i)arents and the j)ublic at large, and upon the 
general efliciont^y of the schools? 

From the letters Mr. Northrop formulated the following con- 
clusions: 

1. Many states coi)ied the rate-bill from Connecticut. 

2. All these, with one exception, have given it up. 

3. 'I'he results of the (;hange are favorable, and meet universal approval. 

4. No state that has once tried the free system has since adopted the rate- 
bill. 

T). The free system greatly increases the whole number in attendance. 
0. The free system elevates and dignifies the school, in the esteem of the 
pupils. 



Connecticut 61 

7. It lessens tardiness, irregularity and truancy, and thus increases average 
attendance. 

8. It enhances the interest of parents. 

9. It quickens the educational si)irit of the whole people. 

10. It has tended to lengthen the school terms. 

11. It has led to the erection of better schoolhouscs. 

12. It economizes the expenditure of money, securing a better result for the 
same cost. 

13. The rate-bill is a source of trouble and strife. 

14. It is burdensome and odious to the poor, imposing an unequal tax upon 
those more blessed with children than in their basket or store, becoming 
a tax upon i)arental affection, and a barrier between poverty and intelli- 
gence. 

15. The free school tends to break down invidious distinctions and to frater- 
nize people. 

Some of these conclusions are hardly justifiable upon a basis of 
the letters, but they may have served well as campaign material. 
Mr. Northrop's own discussion of rate-bills, apart from that 
above, included the following: 

1. The rate-bill is the greatest hindrance to improvement in schools. 

2. It is wrong in principle. 

3. In practice, it causes strife, ill-feeling, difficulties in collection of tui- 
tion, decrease in attendance, divides districts into factions, and keeps 
those unable to pay out of school almost entirely. 

4. It tends to make paupers of honest working people unable to pay the 
tuition demanded. 

5. It makes the state an undesirable place for people to reside. 

Mr. Northrop published resolutions of various associations 
asking for free schools, and discussed evil influence of private 
schools and the conception of ''pauper schools." 

The new state board of education urged consolidation in their 
first report, and in the second argued at length against rate-bill 
schools because they tended to produce undemocratic racial 
distinctions in a democratic state. (Conn. Rept., 1866, 12)» One 

' "No man surely ought to suppose that the State designs to create or foster 
distinctions among the citizens, by a system of public; education which is sus- 
tained by public funds, the common treasure of all. And it is obvious that 
that would be the effect, whether it was the design or not, if it were generally 
understood that the public schools of the State were maintained for the instruc- 
tion of the poor, and were not, also, intended for those who had the pecuniary 
ability to educate their children. Such a theory would make all the public 
schools institutions of charity, like alms-houses and hospitals for the insane 
poor, and if it were generally recognized as the true theory, it would inevitably 
bring the schools into contempt with the very class for whom they were de- 
signed, and they would abandon them in scorn. Such a theory would bo 



62 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

member of this same board, speaking semi-officially before a 
teachers' institute at Bridgeport, argued for the same view, but 
with different analogies. (See Appendix) 

Develop77ie7it of Favorable Opinion as Shown by Voluntary Asso- 
ciations, 1856-1870 

As early as 1827, a society "for the improvement of common 
schools" was organized at Hartford. It appointed a committee 
(1827) to investigate the needs of the common schools. Bar- 
nard spoke of this as the first organization of its kind in the United 
States. Again, in 1830, a convention of "Teachers and Friends 
of Education" was held at Hartford. One speaker advocated a 
required local tax for every school. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 154) 

In 1848 occurred the establishment of free teachers' institutes 
as has been described. These were held each year for at least 
one week in from ten to sixteen places in the state. During the 
time when the agents of Barnard and Philbrick were campaigning 
the state, several voluntary organizations were efi'ected, and a 
series of county organizations proposed. At least two county 
organizations were heard from afterward. One of the most 
interesting documents of this period is the petition sent to the 
legislature "Adopted at a Convention of the School Committees 
and Friends of Education in Tolland County, held at South 
Coventry, on the 14th of May, 1851." (See Appendix) This 
petition called for taxation for schools and total abolition of 
rate-bills, a better administration of the income of the school 
fund, and declared the educational advance was dependent upon 
the changes they suggested. Another county organization was 
the "Windham County Educational Association." It held its 
ninth annual meeting in conjunction with a teachers institute at 
East Woodstock, September 24, 1857. A committee recom- 
mended that men and women prepare essays on the various 
phases of the subject, "Education for the entire people." It 

inconsistent with the spirit of republican institutions, and would necessarily 
yield before the prevalence of true democratic principles. A democratic com- 
munity would obviously be untrue to itself, which should not aim, so far as 
its public acts could have a bearing on such results, to obliterate the artificial 
distinctions of society by bringing all the citizens nearer to an elevated equality. 
And if it is proper to maintain, by the public treasure, a system of pulilic courts 
of justice, for the free use of all classes of citizens in the State, it certainly can- 
not be wrong to have a similar understanding in respect to the public schools 
which are supported in a like manner." (Conn. Rept., 1867, 1-2) 



Connecticut 63 

stated as its object "to promote, by all means, the elevation and 
improvement of our Common Schools throughout the County 
and the State." Its membership included some teachers. (Conn. 
Rept., 1858, 104) 

General public conferences were held concerning the further- 
ance of popular education at Hartford, New Haven and Meriden. 
At one of these meetings a committee was named to "stand as 
the representatives of the friends of the public schools." It was 
composed of L. P. Waldo, Gov. J. E. English, Gen. J. II, Hawley, 
John D. Ferguson and Henry M. Cleveland of the General As- 
sembly, Francis Gilette, Rev. Horace Bushncll, F. F. Barrows 
(president, State Teachers Association), Henry P. Haven, Rev. 
J. Cummings (president, Wesleyan University), Professor Wil- 
liam W. Niles of Trinity College, D. C. Gilman, and Henry E. 
Sawyer (principal, high school, Middletown). 

This committee met at Meriden, November 8, 1867, and se- 
lected an executive committee composed of D. C. Gilman (New 
Haven), H. M. Cleveland (Brooklyn), J. D. Ferguson (Stam- 
ford), H. E. Sawyer (Middletown), F. F. Barrows (Hartford), 
and B. G. Northrop, secretary of the state board of education, 
and "it was determined to request the clergymen of all denomina- 
tions in the state, to address their congregations on the principles 
of pubhc education." This request was very generally complied 
with. Many of these discourses were printed, or repeatedly 
delivered. So far as known, all of them avoided any sectarian 
aspect of the subject. At one of these conferences, a platform 
was adopted setting forth the sentiments of the friends of pubUc 
education. Persons present included members of the General 
Assembly, an ex-governor, superintendents of schools of New 
Haven and Hartford, D. N. Camp, D. C. Gilman and Henry 
Barnard representing the state department; two editors and 
others. Others not present, wrote letters expressing approval 
and cooperation. 

The platform of this committee was adopted by the State 
Teachers Association at Meriden, 1867. This platform de- 
manded, among other things, property taxation for school sup- 
port, free schools, high schools, consolidation and continued 
work until these aims should be attained. (See Appendix for 
this platform) The general platform of the committee was in 
harmony with the one adopted by the State Teachers Association. 



64 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

(See Appendix) The subject of free schools came before the 
State Teachers' Association several times. The matter was 
discussed and referred to committees to give further considera- 
tion. In 1861, the committee was instructed to bring this sub- 
ject before legislature. (Conn. Rept., 1861, 26) 

A ''Common School Association was organized at Enfield for 
the purpose of bettering education." (Conn. Rept., 1866, 191) 
Teachers' institutes continued to meet under the provisions of 
the state law. They served as a means of increasing favorable 
sentiment among teachers and patrons. 

The Hartford Ministerial Association, about 1867, sent a 
memorial to the legislature urging the establishment of property 
taxation for schools, consolidation of schools, and urged schools 
"good and free" for every child in the state. (See Appendix) 

Miscellaneous Evidences of Favorable Sentiment 

As early as 1853, the Rev. W. A. Goodrich, of Bristol, delivered 
a sermon, "A Plea for Increased Means of Education." It was 
later repeated by Rev. Goodrich and also published. Sections 
of it were published in the School Report for 1853. He declared 
that there were no real free high schools in the state, that Con- 
necticut was not equal to Massachusetts in supporting schools, 
and made a strong plea for more school support. (Conn. Rept., 
1853, Appendix, 87-92) 

Daniel C. Gilman, formerly secretary of the state board of 
education, was the author of an article which was republished 
by his successor in 1868. Under the title, "What sort of schools 
ought the state to keep?" he discussed many conditions. He 
urged free schools, taxation for schools and abolition of rate- 
bills. {New Englander, Jan., 1868. Conn. Rept., 1868, Appen- 
dix, CXXXVII) 

Some general newspapers published articles favorable to free 
schools, and the Connecticut Common School Journal circulated 
throughout the state. The Union, Middletown Advertiser, 
Christian Secretary, Windham County Telegraph, Norwich Exam- 
iner, New Haven Register, Norwalk Gazette, New Haven Journal, 
The Palladium, Willimantic Herald and the Religious Herald are 
known to have published some articles and editorials favorable 
to free schools before and after 1856. (Conn. Com. Sch. Jour., 
1856-1868) 



Connecticut 65 

The Common School Journal contained considerable material, 
editorial and otherwise, relative to free schools, rate-bills and 
related matters. Both sides were discussed in these articles. 
(See Appendix) 

Actual Development of Free Schools, 1856-1870 

Before 1856, some few communities had established free 
schools. Hartford had free schools before 1850. In 1853, Mr. 
Barnard described the development of schools in urban com- 
munities and named the following as then having free schools: 
New Haven — schools "free to all"; New London — "Hke New 
Haven she has done with the collection of rate-bills. . . . 
The people of New London have adopted the principle of prop- 
erty taxation for all necessary purposes"; Collinsville — "It is a 
free school"; Norwalk — "children of all classes . . . enjoy- 
ing the same privileges"; and Norwich, to which reference has 
been made. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 6-10) Further evidence as to 
New London appeared in the report of the visitor for 1858. The 
school support included the following: School Fund, $2,968.00; 
Town Tax, $3,000.00; Former Society Funds, $106.00; Deposit 
Fund, $687.63. "Any further expenses of sustaining the schools 
have been borne by taxation within the districts." (Conn. Rept., 
1858, 82) Consohdation and beginnings of taxation for schools 
were reported 1854-1855 for the following: Bristol, Bridgeport, 
Plymouth, Hollow, West Killingsly, Farmington, Naugatuck, 
Stonington, Southport, Fair Haven, Birmingham, Meriden, New 
Hartford, and New Britain. (Conn. Rept., 1854, 107; 1855, 12) 

The status of the cities of Connecticut in 1857 was described 
thus: 

"There are seven cities in Connecticut. Instead of uniformity, four of 
these cities are divided into distinct independent districts, each under the 
management of a district local committee. ... In two cities the districts 
are consolidated with one board of finance officers. ... In one city, a 
portion of the districts have been consoUdated into one, while another portion 
still remains separate. There is also want of uniformity in the system adopted 
in the larger villages." (Conn. Rept., 1857, 8-9) 

During the same year, the following towns had high schools: 
Hartford; Middletown ; Bridgeport; New London had a high 
school for boys and one for girls; New Haven had high grade 
grammar schools; and Norwich had just opened its endowed 
free academy. Middletown claimed the oldest high school in 



66 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

the state. In some towns where districts had united, high school 
work had just begun. {Ibid., 9-13) The dates of founding of 
the high schools, as given by Steiner, are: Middletown, 1841; 
New Britain, 1850; New Haven, 1859. (Ed. in Conn., 56) He 
should have added Hartford (1847) to the list. The status of 
free schools in urban communities in 1861 was described by the 
superintendent as follows: 

"All the cities of the state, with one exception, several of the manufacturing 
villages, and many agricultural districts have adopted the system of free 
schools." (Conn. Rept., 1861, 35) 

Of unique importance was the establishment of Norwich Free 
Academy. This was created by act of the legislature in 1854, 
by the establishment of a self-perpetuating body of trustees. 
(Conn. Rept., 1857, 77-107; 1861, 19. Steiner, 53-56. Am. 
Jour, of Ed., II : 664 ; III : 190) This was an endowed free school. 
Concerning such schools, a divided opinion existed. Hon. G. S. 
Boutwell declared that "These institutions are public in their 
use, but not in their foundation or control, and are therefore not 
pubhc schools. (Brown, 318-321) A pubhc school, in his view, 
was one used by the public, established, controlled, and sup- 
ported by the public. 

In 1866, the schools of Wolcottville district of the town of 
Torringford, and of the town of Cromwell were reported as free 
schools. Cromwell voted a tax to "equal the amount which 
would otherwise be assessed on the scholars, and thereby to make 
our schools free." (Conn. Rept., 1866, 187, 212) The same year 
six town and twelve district high schools were reported. No 
direct evidence is given as to their support. (Ibid., 45-46) 

In 1867, the secretary of the board conducted a study of this 
field. The free secondary schools which he found, and their 
enrollments are here given. 

School Enrollment 

1. Branford, senior department of a graded school 55 

2. Bristol (same) 75 

3. Bacon Academy 95 

4. East Hartford High School 250 

5. New Haven High School 217 

6. Hartford High School 225 

7. Middletown High School 139 

8. New London, Boys' and Girls' High Schools 120 

9. Norwich Free Academy 91 

10. Stamford 40 

11. Torrington 51 

12. Waterbury 100 

13. Windham lOa 



Connecticut 67 

Besides these, four schools were reported — Cromwell, Griswold, 
Montville and New Britain — about whose support no definite 
information was given. The "Staples Free School" charged 
tuition. In contrast with this there were reports from sixty- 
private schools, supposed, in many cases, to be secondary schools, 
in which the enrollment varied from 23 to 114. (Conn. Rept., 
1867, 54-66) In 1868, the "First School Society of Wethers- 
field" had a high school, attended by children from six districts. 
The support came from the income of a donated fund and taxa- 
tion. (Conn. Rept., 1869, 202) In the spring of 1866, there was 
a controversy about continuing the high school estabhshed in 
1857. It went to a popular vote. " It was decided by a vote of 
1,170 against 479 that the high school should be maintained." 
(Conn. Rept., 1867, 90) 

It is possible to indicate the comparative degree of free school 
development from the number of districts having free schools. 
Districts having schools not supported in any way, by rate-bills 
or tuition, would be free school districts. From Table II (Ap- 
pendix), these districts are estimated from 1855: 

1855 699 

1856 776 

1857 979 

1858 838 

1859 1,033 

1860 846 

1861 9001 

1862 9551 

1863 1,0101 

1864 1,0651 

1865 1,124 

1866 1,1751 

1867 1,2251 

If these estimates are approximately true, the law of 1868 would 
have had effect upon about three hundred districts, the others 
being free at that time. 

The degree to which rate-bills were used indicates the degree 
to which schools were not entirely free. By comparing with 
total school support, year by year, it is possible to ascertain how 
much was contributed from types of school support used to make 
schools free. Again referring to the data in Table II (Appendix) 
the following percentages are computed: 



' Figures interpolated. 



68 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Rate-bills Free School Support 
Per cent. Per cent. 

1856 10 90 

1857 11 89 

1858 12.7 87.3 

1859 9.8 90.2 

1860 10 90 

1861 9.2 90.8 

1862 8 92 

1863 7.3 92.7 

1864 8 92 

1865 11 89 

1866 13.6 86.4 

1867 12.7 87.3 

1868 14.1 85.8 

This table shows that from 1856 to 1868 approximately 90 per 
cent, of the school support came from other sources than tuition 
and rate-bills. It also shows a real increase in the use of rate- 
bills beginning in 1865. This might be accounted for in two 
ways : First, a real increase in the number of districts using rate- 
bills, regardless of increase in total school support; second, an 
increase in school expenditures. 

The increase in total support from 1865 to 1868 was over 100 
per cent. This seems to show that the increase in rate-bills did 
not mean more schools and districts using rate-bills; but more 
money was needed and the rate-bills were made larger.^ Of 
course, such bills could not exceed the limits set by law. 

These evidences indicate that the general trend was toward 
the gradual establishment of more free schools. The town tax 
law of 1868, or the first law requiring free elementary schools, 
undoubtedly made most all schools free. Although there was 
some opposition to it, the compliance with its provisions was 
very general. However, three other enactments relative to free 
schools were soon made. By an act of August 1, 1868, it was 
provided that: 

"The public schools of this state shall be open to all persons between the 
ages of 4 and 16 years, and no person shall be denied admittance to and instruc- 
tion in any public school in the school district where the person resides, on 
account of race or color, any law or resolution of this state heretofore passed 
to the contrary notwithstanding." (Conn. Rept., 1869, 218) 

The nature of this law shows it to be a reaction of the Civil War. 

A year later (1869) a new law was enacted. It combined the 

features of taxation and distribution in one law and made other 

1 Conflicting evidence is given in Tables VI and VII, Appendix. 



Connecticut 69 

changes. Its main features were: (1) retention of the town as 
the unit for handhng the School Fund income, income from De- 
posit Fund, and taxation; (2) towns were required to appropriate 
the income from the two funds and enough more to make the 
schools in all districts free, in no case less than a one-mill tax; 
(3) towns failing to provide such support were subject to a fine 
equal to the amount they should have raised; (4) in order to 
receive this support districts must maintain schools thirty weeks 
each year, employ qualified teachers, make return of statistics, 
and the schools must each have an average attendance of at 
least five pupils; (5) in case districts found the expenses greater 
than the support thus provided, thej^ must provide the added 
support by a tax.i Some objections were made to this law, and 

1 The free school law of 1869 was as follows: 

Sec. 1. For the purpose of maintaining free schools in this State, each 
town shall, at the annual town meeting on the first Monday of October in each 
year, appropriate a sum of money equal to the total of the following amounts, 
viz.: The amount received by the town the year next preceding, from the 
Connecticut Common School Fund: the amount so received from the Town 
Deposit Fund, and such additional amounts as shall be deemed sufficient by 
the legal voters in said meeting assembled, to make the schools free of expense 
to the districts of the town, for the period of at least thirty weeks, of not less 
than one mill on the dollar, on the grand list last made and perfected. And 
the amount so appropriated shall annually, on or before the fourth day of 
March, in each year, be distributed, under the supervision of the joint board 
of selectmen and school visitors, to the several districts as follows, viz. : There 
shall be paid to each whole district, where a district lies in two or more towns, 
its proportionate part of sixty dollars according to the enumeration last made 
and the remainder of said appropriation shall be divided among the several 
districts according to the aggregate attendance of the scholars, in days, for 
the year ending on the 31st day of August, 1870, no district shall receive any 
part of the money so appropriated, unless the school in said district has been 
kept by a teacher duly qualified, for at least thirty weeks during the year end- 
ing Aug. 31st, next preceding such appropriation, nor unless the returns here- 
inafter required shall be duly made. 

Sec. 3. If any town shall neglect to appropriate such sum of money in the 
manner, and within the time limited in the preceding section, or shall fail to 
distribute the same, according to the provisions of said section, such town shall 
forfeit to the state a sum equal to the amount which it was the duty of such 
town to appropriate, as aforesaid, to be recovered by the treasurer of the State, 
in an action founded thereupon. 

Sec. 6. If the expenses of any district for school purposes shall exceed the 
amount appropriated by the towns, such excess shall be defrayed by a tax laid 
by the Legal voters of said district, in a meeting duly warned, upon the prop- 
erty and polls of said district. 

Sec. 7. The income of the Connecticut Common School Fund, when re- 
ceived by the several towns, shall be paid into the town treasury, and the 
income of the Town Deposit Fund shall also annually be paid into the treasury 
of the several towns in part payment of the amount appropriated for schools 
under the first section of this act. No town shall be compelled to maintain a 
school in, or give any money to a district which during the preceding school 
year has had an average attendance of less than five scholars. (Conn. Rept., 
1870, 244-245) 
6 



70 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

in 1870, another was enacted. By this the towns held the same 
functions as before. Districts having an enumeration of twenty- 
four or more must keep schools for thirty weeks, and smaller 
districts twenty-four weeks each year in order to obtain town and 
state support. Schools maintained longer than the minimum 
term might be supported by "voluntary contribution or tuition." 
Added expense incurred by a district in any other manner was 
to be paid by a tax levied by the district. Similar provisions 
as to forfeiture for non-compliance were retained. ^ 

Extension of Free School Principle since 1870 

By 1870, common schools were free for thirty-two weeks in a 
year in a majority of the districts, and twenty-four weeks in 
others; the Sheffield Scientific School was giving free instruc- 
tion to a few students of agriculture and mechanical arts, and 

1 Sec. 1. For the purpose of maintaining public schools in this state, each 
town shall annually raise by tax on the Grand list of the town, in connection 
with the tax levied for other town purposes, and shall appropriate for the sup- 
port of its public schools a sum of money which, together with the income from 
the Connecticut Common School Fund, and the income from the Town De- 
posit Fund, and the income from any other fund which may be appropriated 
for the support of schools, shall be sufficuent to pay the wages of teachers, the 
cost of fuel and the incidental expenses of the public schools of the town for at 
least thirty weeks of each year, in every district in which the number of persons 
between four and sixteen years of age at the last enumeration was twenty four 
or more, and for at least twenty four weeks of each year in every district in 
which the number of persons at said enumeration was less than twenty four. 

Sec. 6. If any district maintains a school of higher order than is required 
by law of the State, and thereby incurs increased expense for its school ; or if 
any district shall continue its school for a longer time than is provided for at 
the expense of the town according to the first section of this act; or if any dis- 
trict shall expend for teachers' wages or other purposes a sum which the afore- 
said joint board deem unnecessary and extravagant, the cost of such school, 
above the sum received by such district from the town treasury shall be paid 
by a tax laid by the legal voters of said district, in a meeting fully warned, 
upon the property and polls of said district. Nothing, however, in this act 
is to be construed as forbidding the payment of additional expense of continu- 
ing any longer than the time required by law, by voluntary contribution or 
by tuition charges. 

Sec. 7. No town shall receive any money from the income of the Connec- 
ticut Common School Fund for any district, unless the school in such district 
the preceding school year was kept according to law at least thirty weeks in 
each district in which the number of persons between four and sixteen years 
of age at the enumeration made within said school year was twenty four or 
more, and for at least twenty four weeks in each district in which the number 
of such persons at said enmneration was less than twenty four. 

Sec. 9. If any town shall neglect or refuse to provide for the maintenance 
of its schools according to the provisions of the first section of this act, such 
town shall forfeit to the state a sum equal to the amount which it was the 
duty of such town to raise and appropriate as aforesaid, to be recovered by 
the Treasurer of the State in an action founded thereupon. (Conn. Rept.,. 
1871,210-212) 



Connecticut 71 

the principle of free tuition in the Normal School was established. 
At various times (1884, 1888, 1889, 1895, 1897, 1899) the free 
common school law was changed. In 1910, such school must be 
maintained "at least 36 weeks in each year in every town and 
district." But no school was required in a district with less than 
8 pupils. Further the schools were opened to all children by 
the vote of any board of education "over four years of age." 
This was in fact extending free school privileges to the age of 
twenty-one years. By acts of 1886, 1888, 1889, legislation con- 
cerning kindergartens was enacted. In 1910, any town or dis- 
trict could "establish and maintain kindergartens which shall 
be open to children over three years of age." By act of 1907, 
towns were authorized to vote on the question of free text-books. 
Under a similar act of 1905, 72 towns voted "yes" for free text- 
books and 45 "no." By act of 1903, every town in which a 
school is discontinued must furnish school accommodations, by 
transportation or otherwise, for all children within said school 
between the ages of 7 and 16. (Conn. Sch. Doc. No. 10, 1911, 
17-20, chap. Ill) By act of 1897 "any town in which a high 
school is not maintained shall pay the whole or any part of the 
tuition fee of any child who resides with his parents or guardian 
in said town, and who, with the written consent of the school 
visitors, or town school committee, attends a high school in an- 
other town, provided that the high school shall be approved by 
the state board of education. Any town paying out sums for 
tuition in this manner will be reimbursed to the extent of two- 
thirds of the amount from the state treasury. Such privilege is 
extended so the pupil can attend an approved private or endowed 
school. If the town itself does not maintain a high school, it 
must pay transportation expenses of pupils to other schools, 
and the state will reimburse the town to the extent of one-half 
the amount. (Ibid., 26-29, chap. V) By a series of acts on even- 
ing schools culminating in one of 1909, all towns and districts of 
10,000 or more population shall establish evening schools of com- 
mon school grade, and on petition of at least twenty persons 
over fourteen years, add high school branches. Such work is 
free to persons over fourteen years of age. (Ibid., 29, chap. VI) 
By act of 1909, the state board of education was authorized to 
estabhsh in two towns in the state, "a free public day school and 
evening school, for instruction in the arts and practice of trades." 



72 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

No person under fourteen years of age can be admitted. {Ibid., 
30-31, chap. VII) By act of 1888, the expense of schooling 
inmates of detention houses is paid by the county. {Ibid., 31, 
chap. VIII) By a series of acts (1857, 1864, 1879, 1881, 1883, 
1888, 1897, 1899, 1901), free school privileges are furnished defec- 
tive, dependent and incorrigible children in the Connecticut 
School for Boys and the Connecticut Industrial School for Girls. 
(Ibid., 104-110, chap. XXII) These enactments make the 
period of 1868 to the present, the period of free schools, sup- 
ported without tuition fees, in Connecticut. 

Immediate Results of Enactment of Free School Law and 
Free School Campaign 

One of the objections to the rate-bill was that it decreased 
attendance. Did free schools increase attendance? The first 
free common school law was enacted in the summer of 1868. 
In the report for 1869, the secretary of the board claimed that 
the effect had been to increase the attendance. The figures 
following show the statistical record for the whole state. 

Enrollment and Attendance, 1868-1871 

Per cent, of Enrollment Enumeration Per cent, of 

in Average Attendance Children Enumeration in 

Winter Summer 4-16 years Average Attendance 

Winter 

1868 71.3 70.8 120,884 47.2 

1869 72.41 71.36 123,650 48.11 

1870 73.13 71.40 124,082 52.15 

1871 71.10 70.14 125,407 53.35 

(Conn. Kept., 1868, 5; 1869, 11-12; 1870, 23-24; 1871, 15-15) 

In 1870, Mr. Northrop interpreted his figures as follows: 
"They show that nearly 6,000 children were kept out of school 
by the rate-bill." (Conn. Kept., 1870, 29-32) The next year, 
he said, "The increase in the whole number registered the first 
term of free schools, as reported last year, was 6,208, and for the 
corresponding term now reported, 5,744, or an increase in two 
years of 11,952. How beneficent that legislation which has led 
nearly 12,000 children to school and thus to a higher future. 
The proof now before the pubhc, that over 10,000 children were 
barred from school by the rate-bill, buries it beyond the possi- 
bility of resurrection." {Ibid., 1871, 19, 22) 

The following reports from visitors give their opinion regard- 



Connecticut 73 

ing increase of attendance for 1870. "North Bradford Town: 
Last year the average attendance was but 28 per cent, of the 
children enumerated; this year it is 53 per cent. Last year 26 
per cent, of the children between 4 and 16 years of age attended 
no school; this year we have reduced this to 7 per cent. This 
is due mainly to the abolition of rate-bills." "Norwalk: Free 
school law is increasing attendance." "Wallingford: Percent- 
age of children in the schools, this year, 94.6 per cent., last year, 
90.8 per cent. The average attendance in winter has increased 
from 58 per cent, in 1867-1868, to 80 per cent, in 1868-1869." 
"Westbrook: The abohtion of rate-bills has brought into our 
schools a class of scholars that would otherwise have been kept 
at home by reason of inability or unwillingness of their parents 
to pay for their tuition." "Windsor Locks: The average attend- 
ance is much larger now than at any time hitherto." "Bridge- 
port: The attendance is largely increased by the new law." 
"Colchester: Free school law, . . . rate-bills and tuition 
have not been a source of annoyance in this town." "New Mil- 
ford : We are unable to see that it (free school law) has yet pro- 
duced any flattering results." "Trumbull: The free school 
law . . . has not wrought out any of those blessings to the 
cause of education which its friends so confidently predicted." 
In 1869, the secretary said: "In one town, over 400 more pupils, 
and in a single district in Danbury 330 more are enrolled in the 
schools than ever before." (Conn. Rept., 1869, 18) 

No one would claim accuracy for the statistics about yearly 
attendance, nor are the other evidences complete, yet the whole 
evidence seems sufficient to conclude that immediately following 
the laws of 1868, 1869 and 1870, there was an increase in school 
attendance. 

Besides the matter of attendance, the enactment of the free 
school law called forth a number of expressions from various 
agencies in regard to such a policy. In the first place, the state 
board of education went on record as follows: 

"The abolishing of the tuition charge, and the transfer of its burden from 
the individual parent to the property of the town and district, which was pro- 
posed in our report of last year, and urged by his Excellency, the Governor, 
in his message, vt^as a radical change; but the cordiality with which it has 
been received by the people fully endorses the wisdom of the Legislature, which 
adopted it with unusual unanimity. The reports come to us from all parts 
of the State of a largely increased attendance of the children of those parents 



74 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

who were unable, or more frequently unwilling, to pay charges for tuition, 
and while we have no sympathy with this last class of parents, we rejoice 
that their children need no longer suffer for this their parents' neglect. The 
form of the law might, however, be changed in some particulars, so as to make 
its provisions more clearly understood and distinctly defined." (Conn. Rept., 
1869, 5-7) 

Second, Governor Jewell, in his message of 1869, expressed 
belief that the free school law was "accomplishing the good re- 
sults anticipated by its friends and originators." (Conn. Leg. 
Doc, 1869, 5, 10) Third, in 1871, both political parties of the 
state went on record in their platforms in favor of the free school 
system. 1 

In the next place, two sets of expressions came from the school 
visitors, in both 1869 and 1870. Those for the first year have 
been quoted. Visitors from the following places spoke in glow- 
ing terms of the laws of 1868 and 1869: Bridgeport, Canterbury, 
Colchester, East Haddam, East Haven, East Lyme, Lebanon, 
Lyme, Manchester, New Canaan, North Branford, Norwalk, 
Putnam, Wallingford, Vernon, Westbrook and Windsor Locks, — 
seventeen in all. Their statements concerned increase in attend- 
ance, general satisfaction, and approval of schools supported by 
taxation. Still others reported increase in attendance. Such 
were Brooklyn, Groton, Guilford, Northford and Sharon. Some 
expressions of a different tone came also. From East Granby: 
"Our free school system will work well when our people fully 
understand the law." Litchfield reported that "the present 
school law docs not meet the full approbation of the public." 
Southbury reported: "The new law has had a bad effect in our 

'Democratic Party's Resolution, adopted January 17, at Hartford. "Re- 
solved, That the source of power being in the people, free schools and general 
education are essential to good government and the perpetuation of free insti- 
tutions." 

Republican Party's Resolution, adopted January 25, at New Haven. "Re- 
solved, That general education is essential alike to the preservation and pros- 
perity of the Republic, the source of thrift in peace, and power in war, the 
cheapest defense of the nation, the wisest police agency, seeking the prevention 
rather than the punishment of crime; that the wealth of the State consists in 
its men, in its treasures of mind; that education tends to economy, thrift, and 
virtue, while ignorance means waste and weakness, if not pauperism and crime, 
that it is the duty and interest of the State to secure a good common school 
education free to the children of all classes, the poor as well as the rich; that 
we commend the growing harmony and cooperation l)etween labor and capital, 
and the recent lil)erality and interest of our manufacturers and capitalists in 
promoting the education of the children of the State, and congratulate the 
people on the encouraging progress of this great interest." (Conn. Rept., 1871, 
23-24) 



Connecticut 75 

schools." Stamford reported some friction and excitement over 
the law, while from Thompson came the statement that they 
could "hardly see where they were the gainers by the new law." 
In the legislature opposition came up, and in 1870, an attempt was 
made to repeal the free school law, but it failed. (Conn. Rept., 
1870, 30-32, 154, 168, 208, 217, 1879, 32-36) 

The result in increased expenditure for schools is very evi- 
dent. In 1868, the total resources increased $278,819.62, an 
increase of over 33 per cent. In 1869, the increase was 
$159,280.39, or about 14 per cent. (See Appendix, Table II) 
In total resources per child, the amounts changed as follows: 
1868, $8.14; 1869, $8.44; 1870, $10.23; 1871, $11.83. In 1860, 
it had been about $3.78. (Appendix, Table IV) About the 
same time wages of men teachers increased: 1867, $45.21; 1863, 
$52.00; 1869, $58.74. Wages of women teachers increased also, 
but by smaller amounts: 1867, $23.14; 1868, $24.91; 1869, 
$29.16; 1870, $31.29. (Appendix, Table V) 

In 1879, Mr. Northrop reviewed the first decade of free schools 
in his annual report. He showed that the average length of the 
school year had increased from 163 days, in 1869, to 178 days in 
1879. The enumeration had increased from 123,650 to 138,407: 
The winter registration from 82,140 to 100,288; the summer 
from 71,177 to 91,413. The number of different scholars reg- 
istered, from 29,390 to 119,828. The per cent, registered, from 
80.38 to 86.56. The average attendance from 59,489, in winter, 
to 77,218; and in summer, from 53,645 to 69,832. It should be 
remembered also that in the earlier part of this decade, the first 
compulsory attendance law was enacted, and that such figures 
would be somewhat affected by its operation. The wages of 
teachers had changed from $56.64 per month for men, to $61.03 
a month; and for women, from $26.93 to $36.50. The number 
of teachers increased from 1,453 to 1,947, a gain of 494 of 
" teachers continuously employed." The income from funds had 
increased from $188,919.90 to $194,426.52; and from taxes, 
voluntary contributions, etc., from $354,166.81 to $1,314,732.33. 
The expenditures for schools per capita of children of school age 
remained about stationary, being $10.23 in 1870 and $10.90 in 
1879. (Conn. Kept., 1879, 21-22) 

In reviewing the fight for free schools he made the following 
remarks which show a change worthy of note: 



76 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

"The enemies of free schools have either been converted or have learned the 
futility of open opposition. Dissentients are still found whose sympathy is 
needed to give the highest efficiency to the system. . . . Comparatively 
few now press the objection which was widely urged ten years ago, viz., 'It is 
unjust to tax me for the education of other people's children. I have none. 
Let those who have, pay the cost of their schooling.' The law has received an 
emphatic ratification from the people. Two years later, when its influence in 
increasing taxation had been fully felt, an earnest effort was made in the legis- 
lature for its repeal, which signally failed. ... As a result of free schools, 
the great majority of the towns concur in saying that there has been a decided 
advance in the number at school, in regularity of attendance, and in the mani- 
fest interest of the people. Moreover it is felt that the schools belong to the 
people. In patronizing them the poorest parent is proudly conscious that he 
has no leave to ask, no patron to conciliate, and no alms to beg." (Conn. Rept., 
1879, 32-36) 

Besides this review by the secretary, Mr. Northrop, a session 
of the State Teachers' Association, held at New Haven, was 
in the nature of a meeting for self-congratulation on the ad- 
vance in free schools. It was also pointed out that the claim, 
made in 1868, that free schools were a species of communism, 
had been disproved. And finally it was shown that the idea of 
free education as charity had practically disappeared. {Ibid., 
37, 46-49) 



PART II 
MICHIGAN 

GENERAL SOCIAL CHANGES 

The early period of exploration under French auspices had so 
little influence upon the period of 1800-1870 that it is purposely 
neglected. By 1800, Dutch and English traders, and settlers 
from New York and New England began to appear in the ter- 
ritory. After the opening of the Erie Canal, settlers from New 
York and New England came in large numbers. The population 
increased from 4,700 (1810) to nearly 400,000 in 1850. A very 
small percentage were negroes, but slavery was practically non- 
existent. By 1860, foreign immigrants added largely to the 
illiteracy of the state. Ten years before, the major part of the 
population consisted of persons born in New York, Ohio, Ver- 
mont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New 
Jersey. From New England the total was 30,923. New York, 
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey contributed 148,870. The pro- 
portions were similar in 1860. 

From 1800 to 1870 agriculture was the dominant vocation. 
In 1860 the ratio of the number of persons engaged in agriculture 
to the number engaged in manufacturing was six to one. The 
northern part of the state was not well settled until after 1870, 
but important cities like Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and Detroit 
had grown up in the central and southern parts. 

From 1800 to 1870 the government changed very much. 
Before 1805 the government was under the ordinance of 1787, 
and was composed of a military governor and a court of three 
justices holding sessions successively in different places in the 
Northwest Territory. Michigan, or the County of Wayne, was 
a part of this area. The officials were appointed by the P'ederal 
government. In 1799 a legislative assembly met at Cincinnati 
and the County of Wayne sent three delegates. The governor 
and three justices, before 1799, exercised all legislative, executive 
and judicial powers. In 1805 the Territory of Michigan was 

77 



78 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

created. The government was vested in a governor (William 
Hull) and three justices, the four possessing the powers of the 
three departments of government. Local government was 
vested in district courts and courts of justices of the peace. De- 
troit was given a city government composed of a mayor and 
council of two chambers, all appointed by the governor. Public 
land questions and titles were causing much discussion and 
trouble, and the unsettled status of the Indians and British con- 
stituted a menace to rapid development. 

The War of 1812 retarded the growth of the territory. In 1813 
Lewis Cass became governor. In 1815 the county system of local 
government was adopted, and by 1822 eleven counties were 
organized. In 1819 the territory was given a popularly chosen 
representative in the national Congress. In 1823 a legislative 
council, appointed by the Federal authorities, was established. 
In 1827 the people were empowered to elect their council. 

The people adopted a constitution in 1835-1837, and the state 
was admitted into the Union. The new state kept this consti- 
tution until 1850, when a second was adopted, which remained 
in force until 1908. 

The territorial legislature established the town as the unit of 
local government, smaller in area than the county. This was 
very much like the New England town with its annual meeting 
and elective officers. (Cook, Government of Michigan) 

The plan adopted for the government of Detroit in 1805 was 
modified and apphed to other urban communities, so that in the 
period in question Michigan had its general government and three 
types of units of local government — the county, town, and mu- 
nicipality. 

The panics of 1837 and 1857 had their influence upon the state, 
and the Civil War held the attention of the people for four years. 
Before 1850, the state had its fever for speculation and "wild- 
cat" banking. 



SOME LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
CHANGES, 1785-1870 

By the national ordinance of 1785, the system of townships was 
provided. By the ordinance of 1787, a general government was 
provided. Under a law of 1795, the township was made the unit 
for administration of poor relief and apprenticeship. After 
Michigan became a separate territory, a law of 1809 required 
the overseers of the poor in each judicial district to divide the 
territory into school districts. The oft-quoted law of 1827 made 
townships and districts the local units of school administration, 
with most power in the township. Each district was to have 
three trustees who were required to levy a tax for school support. 
The townships had a board of five inspectors with general super- 
vision over schools. In 1829 three commissioners replaced the 
five inspectors, and the powers of districts were enlarged. The 
constitution of 1835-1837 adopted the district and perpetuated 
it by requiring that a school be maintained for at least three 
months each year in each school district. 

In the territorial period the University of Michigan was under 
the control of the legislature and a board composed of the gov- 
ernor and judges. The constitution of 1835-1837 provided a 
board of regents composed of the governor, lieutenant-governor, 
supreme court justices, and twelve other persons appointed by 
the governor and senate. This type of board continued to exist 
until 1850, when the new constitution provided for a new board. 
The members were to be elected, one from each judicial circuit, 
and were to have general supervision and control of the univer- 
sity. Still later (1862) the board was made up of eight regents, 
two to be elected each year. Under these types of management 
the university established several branches or secondary schools 
in the territorial period, and the higher education was developed. 

As early as 1833, the territorial legislature provided for a super- 
intendent of common schools. The constitution of 1835-1837 
provided for a superintendent of public instruction to be elected 
by joint action of the governor and legislature. The constitu- 
tion of 1850 provided that this official should be elected by popu- 

79 



80 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

lar vote. The same document provided for a state board of 
education of three members with the superintendent a member 
ex-officio. This board had control of the state normal school only. 
In 1859 a deputy superintendent was added to the office of super- 
intendent of public instruction, 

A law of 1867 provided for county superintendents. In 1842 
the city of Detroit was organized into one school district with full 
control of its schools. In 1859, all districts having more than one 
hundred children were empowered to reorganize and to establish 
graded and high schools. Following the lead of Detroit, many 
other cities reorganized into union districts under special acts of 
the legislature. 

The main items of school support used during this period were 
district taxes, township taxes, rate-bills, and income from the 
state school fund. The lands granted to Michigan for schools 
(Sec. 16, swamp and university lands) were gradually sold, some- 
times at a fair price, but usually at a low price. Money received 
from the sale of lands in section 16 became known as the Primary 
School Fund ; that received from the swamp land, as the Swamp 
Land Fund. The state soon adopted the policy of borrowing 
this money as it was paid in. On the Primary School Fund it 
paid seven per cent, interest, and on the Swamp Land Fund, five 
per cent. Since then, the first is known as the Seven Per Cent. 
Fund, and the latter as the Five Per Cent. Fund. (Swift, Chap. 
XXX) 

District and township taxes were authorized in the law of 
1827. In 1841, townships could levy taxes to the extent of one 
dollar per child of school age. Changes were made in this law 
in 1843, 1844, 1845, 1851, 1853, 1859, and 1879. In 1851 it was 
made two mills on the dollar; in 1853 changed to one mill, and 
raised again to two mills in 1859. No restrictions existed upon 
the power of the district to levy taxes until 1875. 

The law of 1827 uses the word "rate-bills," but the actual be- 
ginning of rate-bill legislation was the law of 1829. Later 
changes were made in this provision in 1843, 1850, 1859, and 
rate-bills were abolished by law in 1869. 



EDUCATIONAL CONDITIONS UNDER THE GOVERN- 
MENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY, 

1785-1805 

The history of the evolution of free schools in Michigan may 
be grouped into six periods, as follows: (1) 1785-1805: Educa- 
tion in Michigan under the government of the Northwest 
Territory. (2) 1805-1837: Education under the Territorial 
regime. (3) 1837-1850: Development under the First Con- 
stitution. (4) 1850-1860: Free school development under 
Second Constitution to Civil War period. (5) 1860-1869 : Devel- 
opment from increase to two-mill tax to Free School Law for 
Common Schools. (6) 1869 to present. 

The first period, 1785-1805, is marked by some legislation of 
importance, but such educational conditions as existed were 
meager and their history very obscure. By act of Congress, 
1785, all territory lying northwest of the Ohio River was or- 
ganized into a " Northwest Territory." Two types of legislation 
occurred in this period to influence education, viz.. Federal and 
Territorial. The Federal legislation consisted of the land survey 
provisions of 1785, the section on education in the ordinance of 
1787, and the powers to the board of treasury of the same year. 
The Territorial legislation consisted of two laws enacted in June, 
1795, by the governor and judges of the Northwest Territory, the 
first entitled ''A law establishing Orphans' Courts" (June 17), 
and the second "A law for the relief of the Poor" (June 19) . 

The first of these laws was "An Ordinance for ascertaining the 
mode of disposing of lands in the Western territory," adopted 
by Congress, May 20, 1785. It provided for the system of land 
survey used in the Northwest Territory, including the township, 
divided into thirty-six sections one mile square, numbered con- 
secutively from one to thirty-six. This system applied to "the 
territory ceded by the individual states to the United States, 
which has been purchased of the Indian inhabitants." The im- 
portant provision follows: "There shall be reserved the lot No. 
16 of every township, for the maintenance of public schools, 
within the said township." (Hinsdale, A. B., Documents, 1269) 

81 



82 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Following the agitation of the Ohio Company, and especially its 
leader, Dr. Cutler, the ordinance of 1787 was enacted. Article 
III, sees. 3 and 25, concerns our problem. 

"Sec. 3. . . . Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to 
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of 
instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision, not inconsist- 
ent with the right of conscience." 

"Sec. 25. That no law shall be passed to prevent the poor in the several 
counties and townships within this state from an equal participation in the 
schools, academies, colleges, and universities within this state, which are en- 
dowed in whole or in part from the revenue arising from donations made by 
the United States for the support of schools and colleges, and the doors of these 
said schools, academies and universities shall be opened for the reception of 
scholars, students and teachers of every grade without any distinction or 
preference whatever, contrary to the intent for which said donations were 
made." 

These provisions were enacted July 13, 1787. Ten days later, 
Congress defined the "Powers to the board of treasury to contract 
for the sale of the Western Territory," in which is found the fol- 
lowing provision: "The lot No. 16 in each township, or fractional 
part of a township, to be given perpetually for the purposes con- 
tained in the said ordinance (1785)." (Hinsdale, Documents, 
1269) 

These provisions have as their most important result the devel- 
opment of the "Public Permanent Common School Funds." 
In Michigan this became the source of the Primary School Fund, 
the interest from which was an important factor in school support 
for many years before the schools became free from the rate-bill 
and its evils. ^ 

The second type of legislation, the Territorial, was a direct 
establishment of the apprenticeship system. The legislative 
authority consisted of Governor Arthur St. Clair, and the two 
territorial judges, John Cleves Symmes and George Turner.. 
These officials, June 17, 1795, enacted a law to estabhsh "Or- 
phans Courts." The enacting clause states that it was " adopted 
from the Pennsylvania code and pubhshed at Cincinnati." 
Section I provides that an orphans' court shall be kept by the 
justice of the peace in each county. Section VII gives the justices 
power to appoint guardians, tutors, and to bind minors as ap- 
prentices : 

1 Fund has been used up and state levies tax to pay interest. 



Michigan 83 

"... and at the instance and request of the said executors, admin- 
istrators, guardians, or tutors, to order and direct the binding or putting out of 
minors, apprentices to trades, husbandry, or other employments as shall be 
thought fit." 

"Sec. XII. Provided always that none of the said Orphans' courts shall 
have any power to order or commit the tuition or guardianship of any orphans 
or minors; or bind them apprentices to any person or persons, whose rehgious 
persuasion shall be different from what the parents of such orphans, or minors 
professed, at the time of their decease; or against the minor's own mind or in- 
clination, so far as he or she has discretion and capacity to express or signify 
the same; or to persons that are not of good repute, where others of good 
credit, and of the same persuasion, may or can be found." (Laws, Northwest 
Territory, MaxweU's Code, Vol. 3, 81-89) 

On June 19, 1795, two days after the enactment of the law es- 
tablishing orphans' courts, "A Law for the relief of the Poor, 
Adopted from the Pennsylvania Code, and published at Cincin- 
nati," was enacted by the same authority. By section I, justices 
of the peace were required to appoint two overseers of the poor in 
each township. Section IV allowed said overseers, with consent 
of the justices, to levy a ratio on real estate not to exceed two 
cents on the dollar, and a poll tax of seventy-five cents on every 
"freeman" not paying other tax "which assessments may be re- 
peated by the authority aforesaid, as often, in one year, as shall 
be found necessary for the support of the poor; to be employed 
in providing proper houses and places and a convenient stock of 
hemp, flax, thread and other ware, and stuff, for setting to work 
such poor persons as apply for relief, and are capable of work- 
ing; . . ." In section VII, power is given to collect such rates 
by force, if necessary. Section IX, " Concerning Poor Children," 
follows : 

"It shall and may be lawful for the overseers of the poor of the township 
aforesaid, by the approbation and consent of two justices of the peace of the 
county, to put out as apprentices, all such poor children, whose parents are 
dead, or shall be found by said justices imable to maintain them, males till 
the age of twenty-one, and females till the age of eighteen years." {Ibid., Vol. 
3, 127-148) 

Although these laws were enacted for the whole Northwest 
Territory, the Federal laws did not influence Michigan during the 
period in question, and the general territorial laws seem to have 
had even less influence, then or later. However, it should not be 
overlooked that these apprenticeship laws were the beginnings of 
a type of laws later enacted quite generally throughout the states,, 



84 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

in which apprenticeship as a means of education was considered 
applicable to the children of the poor. 

During the period of 1785-1805, the population of Michigan 
consisted of Indians, French, half-breeds, and, in or around De- 
troit, some English-speaking people. The British retained con- 
trol of this military post during a good share of this period. 
The French were interested in trapping, trading, and farming; 
the British, in trading and military affairs. Neither seem to have 
given much concern to matters educational. Their time was 
consumed largely with the physical activities of real frontier 
life. It is possible that some elementary parochial schools were 
maintained by the Catholics, but the writer has found no evi- 
dence of them. Immediately upon the establishment of a sepa- 
rate territorial government for Michigan, matters of education 
were given some attention. 

Out of the legislation of this period comes the Federal policies 
of land-grants for common schools, and that the advantages of 
such schools should be open to all without distinction. It is also 
the beginning of much apprenticeship legislation for states west 
of the Appalachian barrier. There is also a possibility that the 
Poor Law organization effected by St. Clair and the judges for the 
Northwest Territory in 1795 gave some suggestion to Hull and 
the judges for the enactment of the Michigan law of 1809 which 
is referred to in the following section. 



FREE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT WHILE MICHIGAN 
WAS A TERRITORY, 1805-1837 

The relation between schools and pauperism appeared very 
early in Michigan. It is seen in the following law enacted by the 
Territory of Michigan, February 26, 1809: 

"Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the Territory of Michigan, 
That it shall be the duty of the overseers of the poor of such judicial district 
within this Territory, some time in the month of May next, to divide their 
respective districts into such sections as, in their judgment, will be most con- 
venient for erecting school houses, and maintaining schools, which sections 
shall be styled school districts, which may be altered from time to time as will 
best accommodate the inhabitants."^ 

This seems to have been the first legislation for schools in 
Michigan and it is significant that the schools are placed under 
the care of the overseers of the poor. 

In 1817, this idea again appears in the curious act establishing 
the Catholepistemiad, or University of Michigan. A section of 
this law provided that the tuition of indigent students should be 
paid from the public funds, as follows : 

"If the judges of the court of any county, or a majority of them shall certify 
that the parent or guardian of any person has not the adequate means to de- 
fray the expense of the suitable instruction, and that the same ought to be a 
public charge, the honorarium (tuition) shall be paid from the treasury of 
Michigan."^ 

The writer has found no evidence of actual use of this provision. 

A law enacted by the Territorial legislature, April 12, 1827, is 
important. Its general provisions are modeled very closely after 
the Massachusetts law of 1647. Parts of section 6 and section 7 
of this law are relevant. 

"Sec. 6. And it shall be the further duty of the trustees of each district, 
as soon as may be, after the trustees have voted a tax, to make a rate-bill or 
tax list, which shall raise the sum voted, with 4 cents on the dollar for collection 
fees, on all the taxable inhabitants of said district, agreeable to the levy on 
which the township tax was levied the preceding year, and annex to the said 
tax list or rate bill a warrant."' 



1 Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. IV, p. 90. 

^ Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1897-98, Chap. XIII, p. 601. 

2 Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. II (pub. 1874), p. 472. 

7 85 



86 Developmcnl of Free Schooh in the United States 

Section 7 provided for (lie cxciiiplioii of i);ir<'riis of cljildron of 
the poor from siipplyinj^ fuel ;ih f(»llowK: 

'"riidt. no child or r-hildn-n hIiiiII Imi ch-iiifd l,l)(i i)rivi !(■>!;(! of aiioiidiiiK Hchool 
for or «»ri iur<^oiinl. of t.lic. irinhilil.y of tlic. [nircnl. or jHiroiilH, or iriiiHicr 
of Hiirli (•]\'M or cliildrfii, l<t Hiipply luH, Ikt or l,li<'ir |>roi)orl-ioti of wood in Hiic.h 
diHiricL . . .' 

'I'lic law w.'iH ol)liy;!iiory iti all (()wnHlii})H t-lial, a,d()|)t-('(| its |)ro- 
visioiis \>y a, fwo-MiinlH vol.(^ a,l, an anniml rrKic^tinjr;. 'llw, uho of 
\]u'. wordH "ni,f<;-l»j|| or (jix liHl." ol)H(nir('H ilui n^ul rncjining of 
H(i(itioti 0. It JH not cIcMT that, u real nttobill wan nicatit. It 
may liavc incanl, i.\uH, and alHO a prop(Tty tax, or I, lie IcrniH may 
liavo Ik'(^m Hy nony iiioiih. Srnitli and Slu^rrnari l)oMi asHiiiru^ that a 
tax JH meant hy Hecttioii ('». 'I'ln; following; facts se(Mn to sliow that 
what wa,H m(Mint was n^ally a tax: ( I ) The pliraHoolo^y "taxable 
iiihaJ)i(!UitH"; (2) th(i triJHt(M'H are to vote; a ta,x; (li) it H(H!inH 
that th(! tax wa,H to Ix^ in proportion f,o th(! township tax h^vy of 
the year pnivious. If tlie law ically meant a tax, the uk(^ (»f IIk' 
term rate-hill is inaecMiratc'. Y(^t it is siKnificant that the; 
t(Tm appears in the; law. '{"he exemption features of seefion 7 
aj^ain shows clearly iJie relaiion between exemption from ehar^fcs 
and pauperism. 

A h'lw enaet<'d in IS'J!) provided for actual rat(^-bills. S<u;- 
tion 17 provi(l<ul that vnch person should be assessed in pro- 
portion (,o l-hc! numl)er of days of s(^iiool attended by his or her 
(rhildn-n. This makes it clear that tuil,ion was meant. Sec^tion 
24 i)rovi<l(^H ex(Mnplion of the poor froin payment of the tuition.* 
Section 2.'i pnjvides that, fiersons living nunotc^ from t,h(^ school- 
liousc^ miti;ht, b(^ exempted from tax to build schoolhouseH. If 
parentH faihul to Hupply fuel, their aBHesHment would include a 
levy to pay for Uw]. 

"Tcrritorinl Liiwh of MichiKun, Vol. II (inii). IS71), p. 17'2. 

'•' Sc<". 2\. '"riiiil. wliciii'vrr llicrc Hindi l>c williin any hcIiooI diHiricl. any- 
poor ntid indi^cnl. prrHotiH, unable l.o i)ay for llic inHlniclion of his or her 
children, or where there Hhali lie |)oor cliildren wil hont. i)iirentH in any diHlrict, 
the direelorH of Huch diHtrictr may, in (heir discretion, order Hiich ehil(lr(>n of 
po(»r parentH, or thone without, parentn, to Im^ inHliiictcd at the n<'hooi of Haid 
diHtrict, an<l the expeiiHc of iiintructinn HUch children nhall l>e raiHed hy a tax 
upon the taxable inhabit.uilH of HUch district, and tlu! aKsessnient and col- 
lection of HUch tax hIimII be in proportion and after tlie name manner as herein- 
before mentioned for the niiHinn and collecting!; <(f other laxeH in Huid diHtrict." 
(LiiWHofMichinan, 1829) 



BECINNIN(;S OK VWVK SCHOOLS AND KRKE SCHOOL 
LI'XJISLA'IMON IINDMH, THi: KIKST 

coNS'rrriiTioN, isiiy-isno 

'Vhr ncx(, iinporljiiil. mcIJom occ^iincd wliil(^ Mi(^liij!;iui was 
()rt!;)ii)i/;in^ ;i s(.;i,l,(^ from a, (crritory, and appc^arM in HcuM-ion .'i of the 
art,icl(^ on cdiKiaXion in I lie (toriHtitution as draflcd in ISlif), in tho 
following:;: 

"The Ic(i;iHliittii(5 hIiiiII provide for n, HyHlciii of coniiiioii hcIiooIh by which a 
H(*hool nhiill 1)0 kept ii|) luid Kiippor((Ml in (^iicli Hchool (iiHlric-t., ui U'.nni, Uirco 
iiioiilJiH in rvi'.vy year; luid any m-liool nc^j^lectiiif^; l.o kcu^p up and Hupjiorl, HU("h 
u H<^hool may Im (le|)riv(Hl of it,H ('(iiial proportion of lh(' inl<'r('H(. of IJio piihlio 
fund." (Shearman, IS. IlinHilale, h'cpL U . ,"<. (Umi. of K<l., IKU2- 1S9:{) 

'I'liis did no(, provide for free schools. I( rciinircd, liowc^vcr, U 
ininininni (crni of Hinu; nionllis in c.'icli (listri(^t, and tluH i)ro- 
vision n«a,d<^ (Ji<^ wh(^ of i,\n\ ra,(.<*-l)ill ncuK'ssary in (tortain caw-s, in 
order to keep \]\r. s(^liool ^!;oinfi; for threes niontJis. 

(Jovernor Mason, Mi(^ first chief ex(uuitiv(i of th(! Htat<i of Michi- 
fi;an, in his nu^ssaKJ- ()f \H'M\, dwelt upon e(hication as follows: 

"It heciomeH then your iinjx^riouH (hjty to Heeure to the State a n<^neral <lif- 
fuHJon of knowledge. . Your attcMition Ih (herefore called to (h<! effeetu- 

ution of a jxirfect Hchool HyHtem opcMi to all chiHHCH, aB the Hurewt haHiu of public 
happiiicHH and i)roHpcrity." (Shearman, p. 20) 

The (condition n^fi^red to was not realized as tho governor 
reconiinended. 'I'lu^ lef!;islatur(^ of I8.'i7 enacted a codification of 
school laws whicli s(M'nis to hav(! IxK^n silent on tlu; niatt<'r of 
rate-billH. Much waH said about iha financial condilionH of tho 
tini(^ by tlu^ legislators and th(^ |>;overnor to indicate tliat this nmt- 
ter was absorbing all of tlu^ nttention, and leaving; little; or none 
for th(i concerns of (^hn^ation. 

T\w constitution adoptcMJ whiles Michip;an was bein^ admitt-ed 
to statehood provided for u staXe snp<'rinten(lent of instruction. 
In harmony with this John I). Pierce was apj)oint(Ml by tho 
governor to this offi(!e. No constructivt^ (uhurational h^^islation 
was undertaken until Mr. I'iercre, at th(5 recpiest of the; Assembly, 
outliiuul a system of s<'hools. In his r(HH)mm(!n(lati<)ns, h(5 wrote 
in very definiti^ terms: "Let frec^ schools be established and 

87 



88 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

maintained in perpetuity and there can be no such thing as 
aristocracy in our land." He even went further and urged com- 
pulsory attendance for three months for all children between five 
and seventeen years. 

Some conditions of school support and attendance in 1840 will 
be indicated before proceeding further. The total district tax 
amounted to $59,126. The total attendance was 47,901, or the 
districts were raising a small amount above one dollar per pupil 
for school support. This, together with all other sources, still 
necessitated the use of the rate-bill. As to real attendance, its 
status was discouraging. In 1841, the state superintendent es- 
timated that "not more than one-half of our school attending 
children are in the habit of attending regularly summer and 
winter." (Shearman, p. 97) Ninety-seven districts had no 
schools. Such were some of the conditions with which the 
new system outlined by Mr. Pierce had to cope. 

Governor William Woodbridge in his message of January 7, 
1841, wrote as follows: 

"The revenues necessary for the erection of schoolhouses, and the sustain- 
ment of the system generally, are derivable, first and principally from a course 
of taxation provided for by existing laws. The entire plan upon which this 
course of taxation is founded seems to me obnoxious to the most serious ob- 
jections." 

"Every system of taxation, to be just should be reasonable, equal and uni- 
form. It is a proposition as notorious as it is lamentable, that the assessments 
of taxes for school purposes, . . . are neither equal nor uniform, and in 
some cases have been most highly unreasonable." 

While his words were general, they referred to conditions, one 
of which was the rate-bill, a phase "obnoxious to the most serious 
objections." (Sic!) 

The first free school law enacted in the state was a special 
act of 1842, for the city of Detroit. Section I reads as follows: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of 
Michigan, That the City of Detroit shall be considered as one school district, 
and hereafter all schools organized therein, in pursuance of this act, shall under 
the direction and regulation of the board of education, be public and free to all 
children residing within the limits thereof, between the ages of five and seven- 
teen years inclusive." 

This law has a very important bearing on later developments. 
It legalized free schools in a city, and even made it necessary to 
maintain them. Soon other cities demanded this privilege, and 



Michigan 89 

the example of Detroit had its influence. This procedure was 
similar to developments in Connecticut. 

While the year 1842 marked the enactment of the first free 
school law in Michigan, the year 1843 brought forth legislation 
fastening more firmly the rate-bill upon the common schools. 
This law empowered the assessor to collect rate-bills, if necessary, 
by distress and sale of goods and chattels. The moderator, di- 
rector, and assessor were constituted a district board which was 
required "To exempt from payment of wages of teachers or pro- 
viding fuel for use of the school, such indigent persons, as in their 
opinion should be so exempted." The director, at the request 
of any two persons liable for fuel and tuition bills, must call a 
meeting of all such liable, to considef need of raising school 
money. This had the effect of extending local district option in 
school matters. The same section exempted all persons liable 
for fuel bills, if they could show that they had provided their 
share of fuel. The director was required to make out all rate- 
bills. (Laws, 1843, 88) 

No definite information as to the amount of money collected 
by rate-bills was given until 1846, although earlier references are 
made to them, and their existence must have constituted a very 
serious problem. A township tax for the support of schools of 
one mill on the dollar was established in 1842, and amounted that 
year to SI, 120 for the whole state. ^ This shows, on the face of 
it, that the law was not in operation in the entire state. In 
1846, certain items of school support were as follows: Rate- 
bills $26,558; district tax $92,584; township tax $6,579. Thus 
four times as much was collected by rate-bills as by the township 
tax, while the district tax was about three and a half times as 
large as the total of the rate-bills. The attendance was very 
irregular, and complaints regarding this condition were frequent 
throughout this period, and even after the close of the Civil War. 
The school census of 1846 reported 97,568 children of school age 
in the state. In such districts as reported there were 4,578 
children of school age who were also illiterate, and not attending 
school. It was also estimated that 15,000 children lived in such 
places that they had no access to schools. (Shearman, 154) 
The usual attitude toward the education situation was undoubt- 
edly voiced in the message by Governor Alpheus Felch, January 

* Township taxation was established by the law of 1827. 



90 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

4, 1847, when he said "The laws on the subject of common 
schools, it is believed, are such, when faithfully executed, as 
generally to secure, in a manner highly satisfactory, the great in- 
terests of education. . . . The chief obstacles to the realiza- 
tion of all the benefits of our noble school system, are found in the 
want of punctual attendance on the part of the scholars, and the 
deficiency in the qualifications of teachers. To correct the 
former rests principally with parents and guardians. The latter 
is an evil, deplorable in its consequences, and difficult of correc- 
tion." (Joint Document, 1847, 8-10) No thought appears in 
the message that conditions could be bettered by real free schools, 
but he would make the parents realize their own responsibility 
regarding attendance. Indeed, it is not very probable that the 
social consciousness of the people included, as an accepted prin- 
ciple, the principle that schools should be free at all, and sup- 
ported by public taxation. 

Other changes in the law concerning rate-bills appeared in 1850. 
By these new provisions, the district board was empowered to 
graduate tuition according to the studies pursued and to have 
usual coercive authority to collect rate-bills based upon such 
graduated rates. (Laws, 1850, 20) This added another detail 
to a plan of school support, already condemned by experience, 
but condoned because of inability to see the economy of its 
abolition. 



FREE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FROM ADOPTION 

OF SECOND CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISHMENT 

OF TWO-MILL TAX AND OPTIONAL FREE 

SCHOOL LAW, 1850-1860 

In 1850, the slowly developing free school sentiment began to 
take form in legislation. The superintendent of public instruc- 
tion suggested for consideration by the legislature the expediency 
of "adopting a system of Free Schools." (Shearman, 197) 
The committee on education in the House of Representatives 
took up the matter, as suggested and reported as follows: 

"The voice of the public press, the petitions which have been presented to the 
legislature at the present session, and the generally expressed desire in many 
parts of the State, have induced your Committee to examine this question 
with a view to ascertain its present practicability. . . . The example 
of other states is undoubtedly operating extensively among the people of this 
State as a stimulus to the estabhshment of free schools. And the fact that 
three states formed out of the ancient Northwest Territory have already pre- 
ceded us in this step upon a higher level of education effort . . . ought 
to command our earnest attention to a subject of such paramount impor- 
tance." (Shearman, 207) 

This committee estimated the total cost of tuition at $80,030.24, 
of which $50,412.36 came from public sources, and $29,717.88 
from rate-bills, or, in other words, slightly over 37 per cent, of 
tuition was thus raised. At an earlier date a law had been en- 
acted allowing districts to tax themselves not to exceed one dol- 
lar per pupil, for school support. The committee recommended 
the repeal of this law, and the increase of the one-mill township 
tax to two mills which would make "a fund sufficiently large 
. . . to make primary schools of the state substantially 
free." (Shearman, 210) No legislation seems to have resulted 
from this recommendation. The question was yet a live one, 
however, and it was a part of the work of the state constitutional 
convention of that year to make some settlement of the question. 

The year 1850, in Michigan, is memorable for the formulation 
of the second constitution of that state. For fifteen years the 
state had progressed under the first constitution. The conven- 
tion was now called upon to reorganize the fundamental law to 

91 



92 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

meet the changed conditions of the commonwealth. In 1830, the 
population was 31,639, and the state ranked twenty-seventh 
among the twenty-eight at that time. In 1830, the population 
was rural and pioneer — it had all the characteristics of a new 
frontier. By 1850, the state had several cities of some impor- 
tance, such as Albion, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Ypsilanti, and 
Detroit, the last named having a system of free schools. The 
State University was slowly developing. Private schools and 
academies were appearing; hardly a session of the legislature 
passed which did not grant one or more charters for such institu- 
tions. In 1836, the school enumeration (5 to 16 years of age) was 
2,337; in 1850, the enumeration (4 to 18 years) was 132,234. 
These are some indications of the changes in the fifteen years. 

The convention took up the discussion of the proposed article 
on education submitted by Mr. Walker of Macomb. All sec- 
tions seemed fairly satisfactory except the third, which included 
the provisions following: 

1. That the legislature should establish a system of primary 

schools; 

2. Such schools shall be maintained in each district for at least 

three months in every year, without charge for tuition ; 

3. Such schools should be free to children between 4 and 18 

years of age ; 

4. The Enghsh language and no other should be taught in 

such schools; 

5. Any deficiency that might exist, after the distribution of the 

interest of the Primary School Fund, should be raised in 
the several townships and cities by a tax upon the whole 
taxable property in such townships and cities respectively. 

The adoption of this section would have gone far toward making 
schools free, and would have made all primary schools free for at 
least three months. And further, it would have placed the tax 
where it belonged — upon property, rather than upon individual 
parents or guardians. The committee of the whole took up 
this section. Sixteen amendments and amendments to amend- 
ments were proposed in the committee of the whole. Then it 
came up to the convention proper where no less than six amend- 
ments were offered. Some of the more important will be men- 
tioned. Fralick of Wayne offered a substitute which provided 



Michigan '93 

for a tax upon property regulated by the number of scholars, any 
deficiency, after the distribution of interest from the Primary 
School Fund, to be raised by a tax levied by the legislature upon 
the property of the township or city. This was a move from dis- 
trict domination, and also towards support by taxation on 
property, both highly desirable. Morrison of Calhoun made 
the straightforward proposition that, beginning with 1855, an 
annual tax, not to exceed three mills, be levied upon the taxable 
property of the entire state for the support of common schools, 
such tax to be collected in the same manner as any state tax for 
state purposes. This, of course, was too wide a departure 
from local autonomy for men schooled in the politics of New 
York and New England local government to readily accept. 
Leach of Genesee proposed a substitute as follows: "First, a 

primary school shall be kept in each district at least months 

in each year; second, all persons 4 to 20 years of age could at- 
tend such schools; third, for the support of such schools (a) 

a state tax of not less than cents per scholar returned to the 

office of state superintendent, (b) this tax and school fund inter- 
est to be distributed to districts in proportion to the number of 
scholars in each, (c) any deficiency, that then might exist, to be 
met by a district property tax." John D. Pierce, who was then a 
member of the convention, opposed this. He favored free schools 
and a state tax. Several others spoke in favor of real free 
schools. The chairman of the committee, Walker, opposed 
Leach's proposition because of its similarity to New York prac- 
tices which, he had been informed, contained elements of dis- 
cord. Again Fralick came back with another proposition, this 
time retaining the idea of district taxation and control. This 
was immediately opposed by others. Still others favored the re- 
quirement that the legislature establish the system and attend to 
its details. After various proposals and much discussion, N. 
Pierce offered a substitute for section 3, as follows: "The Legis- 
lature shall establish by law a system of primary schools, by 
which our schools shall be kept in each and every school district, 
for at least three months in each year, and shall provide for the 
levying of a tax not exceeding two mills upon the dollar upon all 
the taxable property in the state, for the support of said schools; 
and the English language shall be taught in such schools." The 
words "and without charge for tuition" were inserted after 



94 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

"free." Mr. Pierce's substitute, as amended, was then adopted 
by the committee of the whole. When this substitute came up 
in the convention proper, six amendments, of various kinds, were 
offered. The substitute offered by the committee was finally 
adopted, together with an additional section providing that dis- 
tricts failing to comply with constitutional provision as to free 
schools should forfeit their share of school fund income. How- 
ever, the matter was not ended here. On the 6th of August, 
Cornell moved to recommit the article on education to the com- 
mittee with instructions to strike out section 3 and insert another 
substitute. The vote on this instruction was carried, 45 yeas, 
23 nays. The article was reported back the same day. Some 
further amendments were proposed, a vote taken to adopt the 
section as amended, and lost by a vote of 33 to 28. Here John 
D. Pierce came to the rescue of this rather unfortunate cause and 
moved to reconsider, which was done, and the whole article laid 
on the table. Again on the motion of Pierce, the article was re- 
committed to the committee on education. The following day 
it was reported back. A slight amendment was added requiring 
instruction to be in English, a substitute offered by FraUck was 
voted down, and the section and article adopted. The results of 
this discussion, argument, and contest are given in sections 4 and 
5 of Article XIII of the Constitution of 1850: 

"Sec. 4. The legislature shall, within five years from the adoption of this 
constitution, provide for and establish a system of primary schools, whereby a 
school shall be kept, without charge of tuition, at least three months in each 
year, in every school district in the State; and all instruction in said schools 
shall be conducted in the English language." 

"Sec. 5. A school shall be maintained in each school district at least three 
months in each year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school, 
shall be deprived for the ensuing year of its proportion of the income of the 
primary school fund, and of all funds arising from taxes for the support of 
schools." (Shearman, 212-261) 

If the friends of free schools thought the victory theirs, they 
were surely deceived. The only loophole left open was utilized 
to delay the legal establishment of the free school principle. 
"The Legislature shall within five years . . . provide 
. . ." was not carried out, and no one could compel the law- 
makers to do it. Of course, other causes helped to delay free 
schools until 1869, but this loophole gave the opportunity for 
evasion. 



Michigan 95 

This contest brought forth several statements of the argu- 
ments for and against free schools, although the majority favored 
free schools. Throughout all of this discussion, there appears 
such prominent factors as the value of the district system, the 
experience of other states, the principle of property taxation 
versus taxation of parents who send children to school. Other 
arguments are quoted as follows: (1) "This amendment pro- 
vides that a tax shall be levied upon the whole taxable property 
of the State. ... As a friend of universal education, I go 
for this measure, believing that the whole property of the state 
should be taxed for the education of the children of the state." 
(Shearman, 217) "The true theory of government, as under- 
stood at the present day requires the whole property of the state 
to support the government of the state, instituted for the pro- 
tection of property." (2) " . . . a tax for educational 
purposes is but an interest tax for the protection of property, 
and should be paid equally by all taxable property protected." 
(3) " . . . the children of the state are the property of the 
state, and entitled to support, education, and occupation, whether 
their immediate guardians can give it to them or not." (4) 
The opposition argument that the wealthier communities would 
have to pay taxes which would be taken out of their communities 
appears several times. This was best stated by Fralick, who 
showed that nineteen counties would lose by a state tax, while this 
same loss would be gain to twelve other counties. (5) Further, 
it was held by some that it would be injurious to the new coun- 
ties. Walker said that most of the new counties would be re- 
quired to raise much more money than they would receive back 
again. Orr held that the "proposition has for its object . . . 
to rob the new and sparsely settled counties of the State of a por- 
tion of the money raised in such counties . . . and give it to 
the older and more densely settled portions of the state." (6) 
N. Pierce held that it was worth while to have a district tax in 
order to keep the people interested. (7) Gale and some others 
held flatly that free schools were good in theory but absolutely 
impracticable. Walker replied that "the history of the New 
England states shows that it can be done." (8) Walker also 
stated the argument that children of the poor were barred from 
schools as they were, and even from sharing in the benefits of 
income from land given by the United States for that purpose. 



96 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

(9) A refutation of argument that tuition should be paid by pa- 
rents according to the number of children sent to school was 
stated by Walker: "It might be said that the man who has ten 
children should work ten times as much highway as the man who 
has no children. He travels the road ten times as much. So 
with poorhouses; so with courts; so with prisons. . . ." 

(10) Moore gave the best ordered list of arguments for free 
schools of any. They were: (a) Value of property and peace of 
society are enhanced, for education diminishes vice and crime. 
(b) Hence it is the duty of the state to provide an education for 
all its children, (c) "These common schools are of exceeding 
value by way of bringing forward and cultivating minds of great 
worth, that had otherwise lain forever buried in the obscurity of 
poverty. They are like scientific surveys for the discovery of 
the mineral resources of the state." (d) Free schools help to 
disseminate the principles of true democracy, (e) A general 
tax is the best means of support, (f) The state has already 
begun and should finish the establishment of real free schools. 
(Shearman, 212-259) 

A few months later the legislature convened and Governor 
Barry wrote in his message to this body concerning free schools 
as follows : 

"One more step is required to secure to all the children of the state the 
benefits of a common school education, and that step is the establishment of 
free schools. Though hitherto the charge of tuition has always been remitted to 
those not able to pay, yet, from a sentiment of delicacy or pride, the poor have 
not, in all cases, sent children to school. By provision of the revised consti- 
tution it is made the duty of the legislature within five years to provide for 
and establish a system of primary schools, to be kept in each district of the 
Btate at least three months in the year without charge of tuition. A provision 
of this kind cannot but meet the cordial approbation of every patriotic in- 
dividual and well wisher of his country. The taxation to carry this into effect, 
will hardly exceed that of the last and previous years collected for the purpose 
of education; and the common schools will, in name and in fact, be free to all." 
(Shearman, 262) 

Governor Barry was destined to see the rate-bills continue, 
although the legislature did enact a law calculated to relieve the 
evils of the situation. It was approved by the governor, April 
7, 1851, and is known as the "two-mill tax law." It reads as 
follows : 



Michigan 97 

"Sec. 107. The supervisor shall also assess upon the taxable property of 
his township, two mills upon each dollar of the valuation thereof, in each year, 
and twenty five dollars of the same shall be appHed for the purchase of books 
for the township hbrary, and the remainder thereof shall be apportioned to the 
several districts in the townships for the support of the schools therein." 
(Laws, 1851, 172) 

Some changes in school support should be noted. The town- 
ship tax for the years 1850 to 1860 shows a steady increase, the 
greatest change coming in 1860. But in five of these years, the 
rate-bills exceeded the total of this tax, and were approximately 
equal to it in three other years. In five years of this decade, the 
rate-bills exceeded the amount of the Primary School Fund 
interest, and in some others did not vary from equality; the 
general tendency was for the rate-bills to be a little higher than 
this interest fund. In no one year did the rate-bills equal the 
amount raised by district taxes. In five years of the decade, 
rate-bills increased as against five when there was no increase, the 
increase varying from $2,600 to $21,641. In the year 1860, 
the township tax made a large advance and the rate-bills were 
lessened $37,384. This shows the possibilities of such a tax. 
(Appendix, Tables I, III) 

No attempt to fulfill the conditions of the new constitution 
appeared until 1855, when Governor Parsons reminded the 
legislature of their duty in his message in the following words: 
" ... it will therefore become your duty to see that the 
requirement of the constitution is complied with." (Joint Docu- 
ments, 1855, 18-20) The words of the governor were unheeded. 
No bill was introduced in the legislature to accomplish such a 
purpose. Why the legislature was indifferent to the requirement 
of the constitution is not clear. Some probable causes are the 
following: (1) The state was yet much like a frontier, and people 
were too deeply concerned with the sterner necessities to give 
much attention to such a matter; (2) the state superintendent 
made no serious objection to rate-bills; and (3) it is probable 
that the evils of rate-bills were not yet fully apparent to many 
people. 

In the years just preceding the Civil War, attention was again 
directed to the question of free schools. In 1857-1861, the 
statements of three governors bear upon free schools. Governor 
K. S. Bingham, January 7, 1857, said: 



98 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

" No one now has the hardihood to (luostion that jiropcrty is safer and better 
protcctinl in jjroportion as it is contriljutcd to universal education. I trust, 
therefore, that you will not fail to make provision by which the re(iuireinents 
of the Constitution shall be; (mforeed that there be a free sehool in each dis- 
trict at least three months in each year." (Joint Documents, 1857, 8-10) 

After this rather feeble effort of Governor Bingham, the chief 
executive remained silent until 1S59. In that year Governor 
Moses Wisner ])rou};ht up ajijain the (lucstion of free schools and 
the constitutional nMiuircment. His statc^nont follows: 

"It is to these primary s<'ho(jls that we nmst ever look for the stability of our 
institutions. It is here that our children mec^t on a common level. The 
chiklren of the rich and poor, the high an<l the low, are here taught alike. 
Our primary s<!hool system should, however, l)e so perfected that no man 
within our State could be able to t^laim that poverty dejjrives him from edu- 
cating? his children. Our i)rimary schools should be free. The State should 
make ample provision for carrying into effect that clause of her Constitution, 
declaratory that 'a system of primary schools shall be established without 
charge for tuition.'" (Governor's message, 1859, 12-14) 

His words had no effect. That very year legislation actually 
extended the rate-bill as a means of support. One important 
type of legislation appeared, however, that tended to increase the 
growth of free schools. 

The legislation (hrectly concerned with rate-bills was undoubt- 
edly due to rapid increase of this means of school support during 
this period. (See Table I, Appendix) By this law, the director 
was re(iuired to ascertain the amount of money which would have 
to be raised by a rate-bill. To this end, he was required to ob- 
tain from the teacher a record of the pupils' names and the 
number of days each attended. To make sure of this, the law 
required the teacher to keep an attendance record. Within 
twenty days after receiving such list, the director must send to the 
assessor a bill for tuition, fuel, and five per cent, of assessor's 
fees. This was to be accompanied by a warrant signed by the 
director and moderator. The warrant ordered the assessor to 
collect the respective amounts, within sixty days, and "if any 
person shall neglect, or refuse, on demand, to pay the amount 
. . . for which he is liable, he (shall) collect the same by dis- 
tress and sale of goods and chattels of such person wherever 
found. . . ." (Gregory, School Funds and Laws, 176-182) 
By one provision, the moderator and director could extend the 
time of payment of these bills "not exceeding thirty days." 



Michigan 99 

Perhaps the most important of all is the re-enactment of the 
exemption clause which was as follows : 

"Sec. 58. Said board (i. e., the district board) shall exempt from the pay- 
ment of teachers' wages, and from providing fuel for the district, all such per- 
sons residing therein as in their opinion ought to be exempted, and shall 
certify such exemi)tion to the director; and the children of such persons shall 
be admitted to the district school free of charge during the time of such ex- 
emption." (Gregory, School Funds and Laws, 187) 

The state superintendent, in commenting on the section, said, 
" None ought to be debarred from school for lack of means to pay 
the rate-bills." Practically all of the features of this law of 1859 
appeared in the law of 1829. Had the interest manifested in 1850 
continued through the decade, possibly this law, fastening upon 
the state exactly the thing which the Constitution prohibited, 
would not have been enacted, but instead there would have been 
a free school law. 

It was this year when the township tax was again raised to two 
mills, where it remained for twenty years. Section 107 of the 
school law of February 15, 1859 provided that, "The supervisor 
shall also assess upon the taxable property of his township two 
mills upon each dollar of the valuation thereof, in each year. 
. . ." (Supt. Rept., 1860, 14) In the first year of the existence 
of this tax, rate-bills decreased from $104,869.20 to $67,484.87. 
The township tax was increased to $262,130 from $129,524, ap- 
proximately 100 per cent., while both the district taxes and in- 
terest money showed low increases. The decline in rate-bills, 
due to this tax, was continuous until 1864, when other factors 
caused an increase in them. "Of 628 townships and cities re- 
porting, there were 70 in which no rate-bill is reported," wrote the 
state superintendent. (Supt. Rept., 1859, 18) He also reported 
that 1,202 districts, or nearly one-third "are free from this ob- 
noxious tax." 

Equally as important as the two-mill tax, if not more so, was 
the law for graded and high schools, enacted in 1859. The im- 
portant sections are sections 1, 3, 5 and 150. Section 1 provided 
that "any school district containing more than 200 children be- 
tween the ages of 4 and 18 years, may elect a district board con- 
sisting of six trustees: Provided, the district shall so determine at 
annual meeting, by a vote of two-thirds of the voters attending 
such meeting. . . ." Section 3 granted the trustees powers 



100 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

to classify sc^holars, o.stal)lish higli scliool on vote of annual meet- 
ing, /ia; rates of tuition, and proscribe courses and tt^xts, and make 
regulations for the government of schools. Section 150 author- 
ized such districts to make s(^hools free' Section 5 authorized 
any two or more contiguous districts (o form a single district 
when two-thirds of the voters at an aiuiual meeting so voted. 
(Laws 18r)0, 44G-8) This was seventeen y(>ars after Detroit 
was (treated into a school district and its schools made free. 
Now what was legalized in Detroit, by act of 1842, was made 
permissive throughout the stale by this law of ISf)*). It did 
not nuike the schools fn^e, l)ut it did give towns and (cities the op- 
portunities to make schools free, and, as we shall see, they used 
their opportunity. 

Before proceeding with the ( 'ivil War period, it is well to sum- 
marize the development up (o this date. The relation between 
the fr(>e s(thool and pauperism appcvin^d in tcMritorial ena(ttment 
placing s('hools under care; of the ovcMseers of the poor in 1809. 
It again appears in the law of 1817, establishing the University 
of Michigan. The first real rate-bill law was enacted in 1829. 
The lirst constitution drafted in ISlif) provided ihai schools bo 
kejit at least three months in each distrii^t of the static In the 
following year the governor urged fre(> schools in his message. 
The first, state sui)enntendent appointed under the constitution 
was John 1). Pierce. It was he who planned a system for the 
state, uiost features of which avcmc cMiactiMl into laws at that time. 
In 1812 the first real free school law was (Miacted legalizing free 
schools in Detroit. The next year the essentials of earlier tuition 
and rate-bill laws w<M-e codifi(Ml in a singl(> law. In 1850 the state 
sup(u-intendent urged the nect>ssity of adopting a system of 
" Free Schools." The House of Representatives referred the 
nuitter to the conunittee on education, which reconunended the 
establishment of ivcv schools. During the sanu; y(>ar, a new 
state constitution was drafted. Tlu^ questions at issue were 
fought out in committees and in conv(Mition between friends and 
foes of free schools, with the result that the legislature was di- 
rected to establish free schools within five years. During the 
decade of 1850 to 18()0, general interest in free schools seems to 
have waned. I'lven the recommendations of the two governors 
that the constitutional requirements be met were not considered. 

» See panes 185-186. 



Michigan 101 

Rate-bills increased until they constituted over a fifth of the total 
school support. In 1859, rate-bill legislation was again enacted, 
a two-inill township tax established, and a law passed allowing 
districts having 200 or more children of school age to establish 
free graded and high schools. It has been shown that the in- 
come of the two-mill township tax was sufficient to decrease con- 
siderably the rate-bills in the state. 



GROWTH OF FREE SCHOOLS IN CIVIL WAR PERIOD 
AND FINAL OVERTHROW OF RATE-BILLS IN 
MICHIGAN, 1860-1869 

The actual condition of educational finances from 1860 to 1869 
needs explanation because of its relation to the movement. The 
amount of the two-mill tax increased every year except 1862 and 
1863. The lowest amount was $248,934 in 1862; the highest was 
$323,246 in 1869. The average amount was about $290,000. The 
amount of the district tax increased every year except 1802 and 
1 863 . The lowest amount was $233 , 1 25 in 1 863 , and the highest was 
$1,308,618.78 in 1869. The average amount was about $578,000 
per year. The interest from the Primary School Fund increased 
every year except 1861 and 1805. It was lowest in 1861, amount- 
ing to $103,457. The highest figures were $165,651, in 1869. 
The average income per year from this source was about $135,720. 
The amounts collected by rate-bills varied more. A decrease in 
1860 of about $37,000 was followed by smaller decreases each 
year until 1864, when $50,080 was the total. From 1865 to 1869, 
the annual totals averaged about $100,000. This increase must 
be accounted for by changes in teachers' salaries and cost of fuel. 
(See Appendix, Tables I, III) 

The number of school districts increased from 4,087 in 1860 to 
5,052 in 1869. This meant a corresponding increase in the teach- 
ing force. During the Civil War period, fewer men and more 
women were found in the teaching staff of the schools. Scarcity 
of men teachers and normal increase in demand produced a great 
increase in salaries of men. Then, at the close of the war, men 
came back into the profession in larger numbers and at an in- 
creased salary. The growth in districts, and consequent addition 
of schools, brought more teachers of both sexes into the profession, 
but more often women than men. There was also a greater pro- 
portional increase in salaries of women teachers than men. In 
ten years, the number of teachers increased 2,328, or 29 per cent. 
The salaries of men in seven years increased 70 per cent., while 
the salaries of women increased 97 per cent. The increases for 
the last four years were 347 men and 400 women. At the average 
102 



Michigan 103 

salary paid these teachers for these years, the total increase in 
cost of teaching was $24,194.10 per month, or for the average 
school year of 6.2 months, a total increase of $150,003.42 per year. 
This added expense was undoubtedly the cause of increase in 
the rate-bills.^ This contention was upheld by the state super- 
intendent in 1863. (Supt. Rept., 1865, 43) 

Two other explanations of this increase in rate-bills seem prob- 
able. The first is that the increase is more apparent than real, 
and what seemed a real increase came as a result of getting facts 
which before had not been reported. The state superintendent 
for the years 1864 and 1865 said much about the inaccuracies of 
reports sent to his office and the failure to send them at all in 
some cases. "Responses more or less full were made in reports 
from about half of the towns in the state." (Supt. Rept., 1864, 
59) In the Superintendent's Report for 1865, several pages were 
given to considering this problem of inaccurate and unreliable re- 
ports. (Supt. Rept., 1865, 37-44) It is believed that this is a 
partial explanation. 

A third explanation is possible. It is that other school rev- 
enues did not increase during this decade proportionately and 
hence teacher support had no other resource but that of the rate- 
bill. But it has already been shown that the income from these 
sources had a steady and fair increase. This is further verified 
by reference to the facts for each year. 

Assuming that all of these facts are more or less subject to in- 
accuracy, it is here held that two things explain the rate-bill in- 
crease: (1) It was partly an apparent, rather than a real increase 
— how much it is impossible to ascertain; (2) such increase as 
did occur resulted from increase in number of teachers and teach- 
ers' wages. These, it is believed, are the most important factors. 



1 Salaries and the number of teachers for the decade 1860 to 1869: 






Men 


Women 




Wages per 


month 


Year 


Teachers 


Teachers 


Total 


Men 


Women 


1860 


2586 


5335 


7921 






1861 


2326 


5484 


7810 






1862 


2380 


5958 


8338 






1863 


1918 


6907 


8825 


$28 '.i7 


$i2'.44 


1864 


1816 


7000 


8816 


34.00 


16.63 


1865 


1326 


7466 


8792 


41.77 


17.54 


1866 


1687 


7495 


9182 


43.53 


18.44 


1867 


2007 


7377 


9384 


44.03 


19.48 


1868 


2095 


7535 


9630 


47.78 


21.92 


1869 


2354 


7895 


10249 


47.71 


24.55 



(Compiled from Superintendent's Reports) 



104 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Having shown the conditions of school support for the decade, 
the development of free school districts, so far as possible, will be 
indicated. The table which follows gives the total number of 
districts in the state for each year, and the number of these re- 
porting free schools, i. e., having no rate-bills. 





No. of Dist. 


No. of Di3t. 


Percentage 


Year 


in State 


Free 


Free 


1659 


3968 


1202 


33 


1860 


4087 


1785 


43.6 


1861 


4203 


2199 


52 


1862 


4268 


2364 


56 


1863 


4382 


2642 


60 


1864 


4426 


2662 


60 


1865 


4474 


2550 (est.) 


57 (est. 


1866 


4625 


2503 


54 


1867 


4744 


2480 


52 


1868 


4855 






1860 


5052 







Figures for free school districts for the years 18G5, 18G8, and 
1869 were unobtainable. The year 1870 began with all districts 
free from the rate-bill, so far as the reports reveal. As to free 
school counties, in 1869, 11 reported no rate-bills and 53 reported 
an average of $1787.78 per county. The average amount paid to 
teachers in those counties where rate-bills were used was .121,211. 
The percentage of the teachers' salaries paid by rate-bill in these 
counties was 8.4 per cent. Yet there were wide variations from 
this percentage. In Antrim County, the percentage was 13; in 
Berrien, 3.8 per cent., in Calhoun, 11.9 per cent., and in Hillsdale, 
13.6 per cent. (Supt. Kept., 1869) 

How well did pupils attend schools partly supported by rate- 
bills? The first evidence is that which comes from the rather 
imperfect statistics of the time. The state superintendent's 
office never compiled data bearing directly upon this problemX^ 
Hence information from this source will be subject to error. The 
first figures relating to this problem are for the years 1841 and 
1842. Non-attendants of school age for these years were 3 and 
10 per cent. (Computed from Shearman, 94) The record for 
1841 is very good. The state superintendent said that ". 
not more than one-half of school attending children are in the 
habit of attending regularly summer and winter." (Shearman, 
97) The non-attendants of school age (4-18) in 1846 were re- 
ported as 4,578, and it was estimated that 15,000 children lived 
in districts where they had no access to schools. {Ibid., 134) In 



Michigan 106 

1850, 125,218 children were counted in distributing the Primary 
School Fund interest, 102,871 of these were attending school, and 
22,347, or 17 per cent., were non-attendants. Five free school 
counties out of eleven, in 1861, reported increases in attendance. 
But one of these was a new county and should probably be omit- 
ted. Four more, of the eleven, reported no decrease in attendance, 
while one reported a decrease. Excepting this one county, all 
counties reporting decreases in attendance were rate-bill counties. 
(Supt. Kept., 1861, 169-213, 216) In 1862, the state superintend- 
ent said "Such schools as are free testify that making their 
schools free has greatly enhanced their prosperity. The attend- 
ance is larger and more regular, the public sympathy is more 
generous, and the school is free from fluctuations caused by rate- 
bill panics." (Supt. Kept., 1862, 82) The following table will 
exhibit the enumeration and attendance for the state during 1861 
to 1869. This group of years is taken, instead of 1860 to 1869, 
because in 1861 the school age limits were changed to 5 to 20 
years. (Supt. Kept., 1880, 326-7) 



Year 


Enumeration 


Attendance 


Percentage attending 


1861 


252,533 


202,504 


80.2 


1862 


261,328 


207,332 


79.3 


1863 


273,620 


216,144 


79. 


1864 


280,772 


215,736 


77. 


1865 


298,607 


228,629 


76.6 


1866 


321,136 


246,967 


76.9 


1867 


338,244 


243,161 


71.8 


1868 


354,753 


250,966 


70.7 


1869 


374,774 


269,587 


71.9 



It is believed that the figures for total attendance for these 
years are too high for the following reasons: (1) There seems to 
be no evidence that the figures for enumeration contain gross 
errors; (2) the superintendent reported many times that direct- 
ors counted the same children twice in reporting attendance. 
It was estimated that in 1866 the total was about 15,000 too high. 
If true, then the approximate attendance in rate-bill schools 
would be the percentage given less the error due to duplication of 
names by directors. (See Supt. Kept., 1863, 23-24; 1864, 44; 
1865, 39-42; 1866, 29; 1867, 124-5; 1868, 148) The school 
inspectors occasionally referred to this matter. Irregular attend- 
ance is an important item in these reports for 1864. (Supt. Rept., 
1864, 73) The next year the superintendent said, "Another 
evil generally reported is irregularity of attendance, but that is a 



106 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

fact almost everywhere so notorious, that a report upon it is 
hardly required." (Supt. Kept., 1865, 171 et seq.) In 1866, 
there were forty-five county superintendents in the state, as a re- 
sult of a law enacted about that time. The superintendent of 
Eaton County referred to the ill "feeling and . . . con- 
siderable disturbance among patrons" caused by rate-bills. 
Very few of these men seemed to have been concerned much with 
the attendance problem, for it is but occasionally mentioned. 
(Supt. Rept., 1867, 22-118) In 1868, the state superintendent 
gave several pages of his report to discussing the evils of poor 
attendance, but he did not state the causes or remedies. (Supt. 
Rept., 1868, 12-18) Then he took up the continuance of the 
rate-bill: "There comes from nearly every Superintendent of the 
State an earnest protest against the rate-bill." Concerning this 
and attendance he wrote, "So long as the schools are free, they 
are usually well filled and prosperous, but as soon as the tax be- 
gins to bear upon it, the school wanes and dies." "The County 
Superintendents are a unit in their utter condemnation of the 
system. I doubt very much if a single teacher can be found who 
would not gladly sign a petition for the abolition of the rate-bill. 
Many of the township inspectors and district officers are loud in 
their denunciation of it, and the people demand a change. " Re- 
ferring to absenteeism caused by this, he continued: "The whole 
tendency of the rate-bill system is to increase and perpetuate this 
annoyance. It offers a reward for absenteeism. The rate-bill is 
made out for each pupil for the time of attendance. Every 
absence lessens this rate. So great is this influence on many, 
that they keep their children from school entirely. Others, if 
they wish the services of the child for a half day or a day, say it 
will lessen the school tax and they will have the labor. These 
considerations furnish ample excuse for retaining the boy or girl 
at home, and when the term ends it is found that the excuse has 
been made more than a score of times." (Supt. Rept., 1868, 18- 
37) The evidence given thus far gives a real basis for believing that 
the use of the rate-bill was one large contributing cause to the decline 
in attendance and to irregular attendance. 

During the year 1863, the case of Wall vs. Eastman, involving 
the rate-bill, was decided in the Jackson circuit court. Wall, as 
moderator of the district, refused to sign a warrant for a rate-bill 
for teachers' wages. The teacher, being then unable to collect 



Michigan 107 

her money from patrons, brought suit against the district, and 
the district was required to pay her and to levy a tax to get the 
money, such tax being levied on all taxable persons in the dis- 
trict. Eastman, who presumably had sent no children to school, 
was thus required to pay eight dollars additional tax, to help pay 
the teacher's wages. Eastman then sued Wall in justice's court 
to recover his eight dollars. The justice rendered judgment for 
Eastman. Wall then carried the case to the circuit court by 
certiorari. The decision was that Eastman could not bring such 
a suit against Wall, but if any suit could be brought, it could be 
brought by the district instead: "If any action accrued, it was in 
favor of the corporation of which the plaintiff below was a mem- 
ber, and not to him individually. " Remembering that the Con- 
stitution of 1850 required the abolition of rate-bills within five 
years and that the legislature had failed to do this, we then have 
a case of a method of school support being considered legal, while 
it was presumably unconstitutional. This is valuable as showing 
the state of the government's attitude toward the question. 
True, it was not called upon directly to settle the question of the 
legality of rate-bills, but the mere fact that the suit was carried 
through as it was, is evidence that rate-bills were accepted by the 
court as a part of the established order of things. The case is 
also valuable as an evidence in another respect. It demon- 
strated that a rate-bill could be collected from the district by 
taxation upon the property of the district, as well as by collecting 
the various sums of tuition fees from the parents and guardians 
of the children who attended school. Of course, Eastman sought 
release from this, but failed because he, as an individual, had no 
legal right to bring such a suit. Even the words of the decision 
placed the responsibility upon the district — "the corporation of 
which the plaintiff . . . was a member" — and it also left 
some doubt as to the legality of the action of the collection of fees 
from the district in the words "If any action accrued." It may 
be concluded that, though the payment of rate-bills by property 
taxation might not have been sustained by the courts, public 
sentiment against such collection was not strong enough to force 
it to an issue. In other words, public opinion was changed enough 
regarding school support, that it was not actively opposed to 
property taxation for such a purpose. The decision seems to 
have had no important influences resulting from it. 



108 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

One phase of the development of schools free from rate-bills 
was the rapid growth of such schools in towns and cities. These 
schools were variously known as graded schools, union schools, 
and sometimes included high schools. The first city of any size 
to attain this condition was Detroit. The incidents connected 
with this development in Detroit will now be related. The first 
step of a legislative nature in the evolution of Detroit's free 
schools is an act of the state legislature of April 23, 1833. By 
this law, the city of Detroit virtually became a school district 
with large powers to control its own schools. A body of officers 
known as commissioners were given administration of the law of 
the city. The voters were required to decide the amount of 
money to be raised for the schooling of poor children. Rate-bills 
were provided for, and also their forcible collection, if necessary, 
except when the children came from indigent families. The 
directors (commissioners) were to determine what children 
should be exempted. In general, the law provided that Detroit 
should be exempt from the provision of the state law concerning 
common schools, and governed by its own special act. (State 
Laws, 1833) The provisions are seen to be the same as those in 
the state law, with very few exceptions. A " branch " of the Uni- 
versity, really of secondary grade, was established at Detroit 
about 1836. Private schools had been established, and also 
sectarian schools, before this time. In 1838 a public school was 
opened in the basement of a certain Methodist church. In 1841 
a school for colored children was opened which had the use of a 
house free. Through the efforts of Dr. Zina Pitcher, one of the 
editors of the Journal of Education, the common council was in- 
duced to appoint a committee to investigate school conditions 
and report. They found 1,850 children "who ought to be in 
school at least one half of the year"; and 27 schools of all varie- 
ties within the city in which there were 714 pupils being educated 
at an annual cost of $12,600 or $18 per scholar. Dr. Pitcher then 
recommended that the common council, "with the assent of the 
freemen, petition the legislature to amend the city charter so as 
to give the council power to raise a fund for the support of the 
schools by direct taxation, and the freemen the right annually to 
choose at the charter election two persons from each ward as a 
school committee," with powers to act as a board of education. 
The press of the city urged the proposition. The council peti- 



Michigan 109 

tioned the legislature and a public meeting was called by Dr. 
Pitcher and Father Kundig, a Catholic priest. Here the whole 
matter was thoroughly discussed, "It was urged that a school 
tax was the cheapest insurance that could be put upon property. " 
The large property holders next got into action, and circulated a 
remonstrance which received many signatures, but which was 
headed by a man so illiterate that he made "his mark." Free 
schools became the issue of the election and a free school mayor 
was elected. Next a bill, drafted by Dr. Pitcher, was enacted 
into a law by the legislature ; this was the first free school law of 
Michigan, becoming so February 18, 1842. The parts of this 
law have already been given and will not be repeated here. A 
board of education was elected and the free schools of Detroit 
began. (Wilkins, in Detroit School Report, 1870-72, 113-141; 
Shearman, 296) 

The next development was a law enacted in 1843 providing 
that "Whenever the board of school inspectors of any township 
shall deem that the interests of any of the school districts may be 
best promoted by so doing, they may form a single district out of 
any two or more districts therein, and classify the pupils in such 
district into two or more classes . . . and raise the same 
amount of the taxes which the original districts forming the same 
could raise if not united." Jonesville, FHnt, Coldwater, Mar- 
shall, and Battle Creek organized under this law. (Supt. Rept., 
1880, 332) It is noted that this law did not require such schools 
to be free. The extent to which they were free will now be indi- 
cated. In 1858, Mr. May hew, state superintendent, sent this 
question to principals of union schools: "Is your school free, to 
the citizens of the district, or are its expenses met, in part, by a 
rate-bill?" Adrian Union School reported that it expended 
$4,619 in teachers' salaries, of which $2,309.55 was raised by rate- 
bills. At Bellevue, the "expense in part was raised by a rate- 
bill." Bronson, Cassiopolis, Coldwater, Dexter, Dowagiac, 
Fentonville, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jonesville, Niles and Port 
Huron reported the actual use of rate-bills. Ontonagon reported 
"It is intended to be a free school." Detroit and Ypsilanti re- 
ported free schools. Ann Arbor reported that the schools had 
been free since 1856 in all subjects except foreign language and 
music. Out of 17 graded school districts, of which 15 were 
legally so, only 3 were free in the sense that we know schools to be 



no Development of Free Schools in the United States 

free, and not one of them was entirely so.^ For 1859 the devel- 
opment of this movement is shown in the following data: 

Adrian free St. Clair free 

Ann Arbor free Sturgis free 

Battle Creek free Ypsilanti free 

Bay City free Charlotte tuition and rate-bill 

Cassiopolis free Clinton tuition 

Coldwater free Dexter rate-bills 

Detroit free Monroe partial tuition 

Dowagiac free Plymouth tuition 

Fentonville free Jonesville tuition 

Eaton Rapids free Tecumseh tuition 

Flint free Lansing free 

Kalamazoo free Niles free 

Jonesville had voted taxes to make schools free, but assessors 
refused to make the levy. Coldwater reported "free for the cur- 
rent year." Charlotte reported that the intention was to make 
the school free. Here, then, were 18 free union school districts, 
and 7 with tuition and rate-bills. (Supt. Rept., 1859, 231-314) 
In 1859 a new law was enacted which referred to those districts. 
The most important change from preceding legislation, so far as 
it concerns our theme, is that included in the following section: 

"Sec. 150. The said Trustees shall present at each annual meeting, a 
statement in writing of all the receipts and expenditures on behalf of the 
district, for the preceding year, and of all funds on hand, and an estimate 
of the amounts necessary to l)e raised by the district . . . for the sup- 
port of the Schools of said district, for the ensuing year, and for the incidental 
expenses thereof; and the said district may, at each annual meeting vote such 
sums to be raised by tax, upon the taxable property of the district, as may 
be required to maintain the several schools thereof for the year." (School 
Laws, 1859, 219) 

This was a step in advance, making it possible for any district 
so organized to levy sufficient taxes to make their schools free. 
In 1861 this law was amended so that districts with one hundred 
or more children could organize under its provisions. In 1862 
five of these districts reported the regular use of the rate-bills, one 
a payment of a rate-bill of $1.25 due from a previous year, and 

1 Legal graded schools were established as follows: 

Adrian 1849 Grand Rapids 1848 

Ann Arbor 1856 Jonesville 1844 

Bronson 1858 Niles 1857 

Coldwater 1853 Ontonagon 1857-8 

Dexter 1856 (?) Port Huron 1849 

Dowagiac 1857 Ypsilanti 1848 

Flint 1846 Detroit 1842 

(Supt. Report., 1855-7, 433) 



Michigan 111 

one that tuition was charged in the high school; twenty-seven 
others reported no use of the rate-bill. (Supt. Rept., 1862, 71- 
189) In 1865 there were 151 districts classified as belonging to 
this group, but the report gives no information as to the extent to 
which they were free. (Supt. Rept., 1865, 164-169) In 1866 the 
state superintendent wrote regarding these schools, "No fear of 
rate-bill for the poor . . . compel them to take their children 
from School." (Supt. Rept., 1866, 18) By 1867 the schools 
numbered 179. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 128) Just how many of 
these districts were using the rate-bill in 1869, when its use in the 
state was abolished, is not known, but it is very probable that, 
if there were any, the number was very small. This movement 
may now be summarized. In 1842 Detroit schools were made 
free. In 1843 consolidation and grading were provided for by 
law. In 1858 out of 17 such districts 3 were free school districts. 
The next year 18 out of 25 were districts free from rate-bills. In 
1859 it was made legal for all such districts to levy enough taxes 
to make their schools free. In 1861 the law was amended to 
apply to districts with as few as one hundred children. In 1862 
but 5 of the 32 reported regular use of rate-bills. In 1865 the 
total of these districts was 151. The next year, the state super- 
intendent considered practically all such schools as free from rate- 
bills. 

The development of graded schools (union schools) has now 
been indicated up to that year when the legislature decreed that 
primary schools should be free (1869), but this is not all of the 
story. Although primary schools were to be publicly supported, 
the right to use public money to support instruction of a higher 
grade, and also to employ a salaried superintendent was ques- 
tioned. It found its expression in a suit brought by Charles E. 
Stuart et al. vs. School District No. 1 of Kalamazoo. The ques- 
tions at issue were stated by Thomas M. Cooley, the eminent 
jurist, and member of the state supreme court where the case was 
settled. 

"The bill in this case is filed to restrain the collection of such portion of the 
school taxes assessed against complainants for the year 1872, as have been 
voted for the support of a high school in that village, and for the payment of the 
salary of the Superintendent. While, nominally, this is the end sought to be 
obtained by the bill, the real purpose of the bill is wider and vastly more com- 
prehensive than this brief statement would indicate, inasmuch as it seeks a 
judicial determination of the right of the school authorities of the State, to levy 



112 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

taxes upon the general public for the support of what in this State are known 
as high schools, and to make free by such taxation the instruction in other lan- 
guages than the English. The bill, is, consequently, of no small interest to all 
the people of the State, and to a large number of very flourishing schools, it is 
of the very highest interest, as their prosperity and usefulness, in a very large 
degree, depend upon the method in which they are supported, so that a blow 
at this method seems a blow at the schools themselves. The suit however is 
not to be regarded as a blow aimed purposely at schools. It can never be un- 
important to know that taxation, even for the most useful or indispensable 
purposes, is warranted by the strict letter of the law; and whoever doubts its 
being so in any particular case, may well be justified by his doubts in asking a 
legal investigation, that, if errors and defects in the law are found to exist, 
there may be a review of the subject in legislation, and the whole matter be 
settled on legal grounds, in such manner and on such principles as the pubUc 
will may indicate, and as the legislature may prescribe. " 

Two reasons were given by the plaintiff why such taxes should 
not be allowed. The first was that, even though other districts 
were legal, the Kalamazoo district had no legal existence, inas- 
much as it had not complied with the constitution and the law by 
having a popular vote upon establishment of a high school. Nu- 
merous citations showed that it was not conceded within the law 
for a single individual to attack the life of an incorporated asso- 
ciation, such as a municipality or district, although it could be 
legally done by a majority of the residents of such a corporation. 
Further, the state law had provided that whenever a district had 
exercised the functions of a district for two years, it was to be con- 
sidered as a legal district, and that Kalamazoo had exercised such 
functions for thirteen years. (Laws, 1871, sec. 3951) The other 
contention was that "the general course of legislation in the state 
and the general understanding of the people had been such as to 
require us to regard the instruction in the classics and in living 
modern languages in these schools, as in their nature not of practi- 
cal and therefore necessary instruction for the benefit of the people 
at large, but rather as accomplishments for the few, to be sought 
after in the main by those best able to pay for them, and to be paid 
for by those who seek them and not by a general tax. And not 
only this has been the State policy, but this higher learning of it- 
self, when suppHed by the State, is so far a matter of private con- 
cern to those who receive it that the courts ought to declare it in- 
competent to supply it wholly at public expense." The justice 
then reviewed the history of education in the state from the early 
territorial period till after the adoption of the second constitution 



Michigan 113 

in 1850. He found the evidence in the main as follows: (1) The 
attitude of the people of the territory under the ordinances of 
1785 and 1787 was most liberal towards education; (2) the Ter- 
ritorial Act of 1817 establishing the Catholepistemiad showed the 
"general purpose . . . that throughout the territory a 
system of most liberal education should be supplied at the public 
expense for the benefit of the whole people"; (3) the territorial 
township school law of 1827 required townships of certain size to 
maintain teachers able to instruct in foreign languages and in- 
flicted a penalty for non-compliance with law; (4) from discus- 
sions in the constitutional convention of 1850, it was shown that 
many primary districts gave such advanced instruction at public 
expense. 

Some other laws were referred to but these were the most im- 
portant. Nothing was said about the free school law of 1869. 
After giving this evidence, the justice continued, "If the facts 
do not demonstrate clearly and conclusively a general state pol- 
icy, beginning in 1817 and continuing after the adoption of the 
present constitution, in the direction of free schools in which edu- 
cation, and at their option the elements of classical education, 
might be brought within the reach of the children of the state, 
then it seems to us, nothing can demonstrate it. We might fol- 
low the subject further and show that the subsequent legislation 
has all concurred with this policy. . . . " 

The general conclusion of the whole case is then given: "We 
content ourselves with the statement that neither in our state 
policy, in our constitution, or in our laws, do we find the primary 
school districts restricted in the branches of knowledge which 
their officers may cause to be taught, or the grade of instruction 
that may be given, if their voters consent in regular form to bear 
the expense and raise the taxes for the purpose." "The other 
justices concurred." 

The case was decided July 21, 1874, and has been quoted in 
cases before courts in other states. The writer prefers a different 
statement of one phase of the conclusion, after examining the his- 
tory of education in Michigan. In the first place, not all the laws 
that concerned schools sanctioned the complete support of them at pub- 
lic expense. The long list of rate-bill and tuition laws, already indi- 
cated, shows this. Such were the laws of 1829, 1843, 1850 and 1859, 
and the special law of 1833 for Detroit. This mass of evidence must 



114 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

not he overlooked and as it is a part of the state's history, it should he 
considered as evidence, just as well as the law of 1817, or of 1833, or 
the constitution of 1835. The " branches" of the State University 
charged tuition fees. We cannot then accept the statement that 
there was "a general state policy beginning in 1817 and continu- 
ing until after the adoption of the present constitution, in the direc- 
tion of free schools. . . ." In fact, the general state policy 
was just about as often the reverse of this. No doubt many 
pioneers brought to Michigan the belief in the need of schools, but 
many of them were more familiar with rate-bills than with schools 
completely free. The ideals of some of the leaders were that 
schools be free. So the result in Michigan, in theory and in prac- 
tice, was a school system and a school policy embodying the free 
school policy and also the rate-bill school policy.^ Then, as the 
people grew in experience, ideals changed and the free school idea 
became stronger until it became well stated in the constitution of 
1850 and was realized in practice for the first time in 1870, after 
the enactment of the free school law in 1869. In all other re- 
spects, it seems that the facts were just as the justice stated. The 
results of the case of Charles E. Stuart et al. vs. District No. 1 of 
Kalamazoo were that (1) free high schools were recognized as 
legal, (2) support of a school superintendent was declared legal, 
(3) since that time, public support of these factors has not been 
seriously attacked in Michigan. 

We have now reached a place where the events culminating in 
abolition of rate-bills may be related. In 1862, the state super- 
intendent pointed out that the state was raising enough funds to 
make every school in the state free for four months and a half in 
the year, but that the system of distribution of the proceeds of the 
two-mill tax made it impossible to realize this condition. By this 
so-called township tax, each district received from the tax just 
what it had paid. For example, let us assume the following con- 
ditions in one township: It has six districts, and the total pro- 
ceeds from this tax for the township are $900 in one year. The 
sums collected and paid back to each district are respectively 
$100, $75, $200, $250, $175 and $100. Each district must hire a 
teacher, at approximately the same cost. If each district re- 

'C. O. Davis (Public Secondary Education, pp. 193-196) refers with ap- 
proval to the views of Judge Cooley, notwithstanding the evident facts about 
the school policy of Michigan. 



Michigan 115 

ceived from this tax $150, it would then be enabled, with other re- 
sources, to eliminate rate-bills. But three of these districts do 
not receive $150 and are required to raise, by some means, $50, 
$75 and $50. Having done this by the rate-bill, they proceed to 
do this now. While the illustration is assumed, the conditions 
were real. The total wages paid teachers in 1862 amounted to 
$491,293. All resources for meeting this expenditure, except 
rate-bills, totaled $471,233. This left $20,060 actually needed to 
make schools free for the time that they were conducted that year. 
But $4^,202 was actually raised by rate-bills for this purpose. 
(Supt. Rept., 1862, 82) Here, then, as early as 1862, the people 
of the state were compelled by a poor method of distribution of 
school support to pay about twice as much in rate-bills as they 
would if collected taxes had been distributed upon the township 
basis and need per school basis. After reviewing this situation, 
the state superintendent said : " Has not the time come to put the 
Constitution in force and require every district in the state to 
keep its school open three months in the year without charge for 
tuition?" (Supt. Rept., 1862, 82) 

In the message of Governor Moses Wisner, January 1, 1861, 
occurred a statement of peculiar interest. He said, " That clause 
in the Constitution which declares that it shall be the duty of the 
Legislature to 'provide for and establish a system of primary 
schools whereby a school shall be kept, without charge for tui- 
tion, at least three months in the year' has been fully in effect, and 
we are now realizing the benefits of that clause in the organic law." 
(Joint Doc, 1869, 9) In the same year, the average length of 
school term was 6.2 months, but not entirely free for that period. 
Over $67,000 was raised by rate-bills. Out of 4,094 districts 
1,785 had free schools. The only sense in which his statement 
could have been true was that all districts had free schools for at 
least three months, but even on this point there seems to be no 
evidence to bear out the statement directly. It might be said, 
however, that comparison of public support of schools with rate- 
bill support showed enough public support to maintain free 
schools for three months. Yet this would not mean that schools 
were free as he indicated. These inferences seem justified further 
by the statements of the state superintendent just given in a pre- 
ceding paragraph, concerning conditions in 1862. 

The evil of unequitable distribution of funds is again made evi- 



116 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

dent by the state superintendent in 18G3. He showed that with 
a hott(T u\(h\v of <liHtiil)iiti<)?i, every i(ia<;h(^r in th<i state could 
have been paid out of public fuiuLs and yet. liavc^ left a balance of 
$7,159.«)(). As it was, 1,710 districts paid 141,200.54 in rate- 
bills — **Wcr(^ cursed with tlic odious rat(!-bills. " "And th<^ evil 
wears a sadder aspect, when we rcillect- (hat, for tlu^ most part, 
the h(uivy burden of thes(^ rat(!-bills falls upon th(> snuill and feeble 
distri<'ts whi<th are the l(>as( able to beai- them." TUo. recom- 
mendations concerning distribulion of the two-mill tax were re- 
peated by the superintcMident. (Supt. llept., lH().'i, 72) 

A relation between free schools and patriotism was indicated 
wh(^n the supi'rintcndent allied that free s<'hools and school- 
taught people of the North would save the nation. (Supt. Ki^pt., 
IHiVA, 72) 

The messaf^es of the governors from IStif) to IStii) exhibit, in the 
main, in(li(Terenc(> to this probl(>m. (ioviuiior Austin Blair's 
messag(! of January 4, 1805, contain(>d tlu; following: 

"There have not; l)(H>n brought into tlio free Hchoola all thoao children of the 
poor who ounht to come there; (luito the contrary. . . . Even the rate- 
bill <li(l one n<)0(l thinp; that it aroiiHcd the attention of those upon whom it waa 
levied." (Joint Doc, ISOf), II) 

In spite of the fact that Mi(rhigan was on(> of the last states to 
abolish the use of the rate-bill, (u)V(Mnor 11. 11. ( 'rapo's message 
of January 2, 1807, contained tlu> following statements: 

"Altiiounh our system of education . . may not be free from serious 

defects, yet 1 think we may justly pride ourselves upon the very liberid views 
adopted by us, as a people, on this subject . . . ; for there are today, 1 
bolievo, very few States in the Union where the cause of i)opular education re- 
ceives more favor and sui)port than in Michif!;an." (Joint Doc, 18G7, 40) 

In the two messages of Governor Crajx) and 11. 11. Baldwin, in 
18()9, no mention is made of the need of free schools. 

In his report for 18()S, the stat(> superintendent made tlu* most 
coiu'ertcd and organizcul attack upon rate-bills as a means of sup- 
port, in all tlu> history of the matter in Michigan. (Quotations 
will be given from his attack. 

"This has an ex(HHMlingly [)ernicious inllu(>nce u[)on the schools. 
From the reports which are sent from every part of the State, we 
learn that great inconvenience is felt from the rate-bill, very many 
schools are nearly broken uj) by it." "There comes from nearly 
every Superintendent in the State an earnest protest against the 



Michigan 117 

rate-bill. The educational interests of the State demand that the 
question of free schools shall have the immediate and earnest at- 
tention of our legislation. " The superintendent then introduced 
the results of an investigation and some otlusr material from the 
Annual Jleport of the State Board of Education of Connecticut 
for 18G8. The essential argument of the whole material was that 
"The greatest hindrance to the improvement of our schools, is the 
rate-bill." This was supported by opinions from various state 
superintendents, all in favor of free schools. After pres(>ntiiig 
seventeen pages of material in his attack, the superintendent 
closes with these words: 

"I Ciiiinot tlouhl, tliidi the |)roHCiit L(!gislaturo will proclaim to tho world that 
our public HchooLs siiall he as free as the air we bn^athe. NoLliiiifj; could bo 
done that would more Hurely attract industry, ititelli^;eiic(^ and wc^alth to ua 
than to make our s<^hools free. . . . Let not tiie 'odious rate-bill' be left to 
mar this prosperity or blight the future so full of promise. " (Supt. R,(5pt., ISfiS, 
18-:57) 

This attack was made by a nuui who curlier in life expressed 
some doubt as to the real value and Ixuicfit of free schools, Oramel 
Hosft)rd. The n^port was made dircf^t to "The TT()M(>ial)le I^egis- 
lature of th(> State of Mii^higan," December 10, IS(i8. On tlu; 
twenty-fifth of January, 1809, Senate Bill 99, to provide free 
schools, was iiitroduc^ed. It was iimnediately refernnl to the 
S(!nat(^ <'otninittee on public instruction. 

Sev(!nteen days later, the commit Ice i'(^port(ul as follows: 

"The Conunittec! on I'ublic Instruction . . be)^ l(!av(^ to report the 

object to be obtairxul l)y said bill, is to provide for fn^e i)riniary schools, by 
abolishing the rate bill in this State, and your Committee deem the subject one 
of very great importance, and one that conunends itself to the good sense, in- 
telligence and wisdom of the peoi)le. If your Committee are correcstly advised, 
there are now only three States that cling to the ratcvbiU systcim by which to 
raise deficiencies that may be due for teachers' wag<!s, and the expenses inci- 
dent to a term of school in any on(^ district (where tlu; gcMuu'osity and patriotism 
of the taxpayer may not havc^ provided for a free s('liool) and yo\n- (Committee 
are of the opinion that Michigan, one of the said Stales, and the oidy western 
one, ought not to be the last to abandon this cumbrous and aiiti-republi(!an 
prac^tice, but should with commendable promptness hasten to bl(jt from its 
statutes this most incongruous and inharmonious machinery. It has been 
made to ap|)ear to your Committee that many distritits in the State have al- 
niady 'wifKid out' the rate-l)ill mode of meeting deficierutics for scihool purposes; 
and recognizing the truth of the maxim that 'the property of the State ought to 
educate; the (children of the State; at least in the (elementary branches peculiar 
to our i)riniary system,' your Committee desire to take immediate hold of that 



1 1 8 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

princii)I(>, mid iiiiikc it cITcctivo in its applic^atioii to ilic schools of Michi- 
gan; . . ." "Your C'onimittcc arc advised that whenever the rate-bill 
is not in use, and the schools arc free, the attendance is larger and more regular, 
the schoolrooms are better filled, and the schools are in a more prosperous con- 
dition; that when the same bill is resorted to, in order to meet delicioiH^ies, the 
prac^tice obtains to send to school only so long as the publi*; money pays the 
expense, and when su(^h funds are exhausted, the scholars are rapidly with- 
drawn for fear of the specilic tax, the coUecitor, and the execution in case of 
poverty; and no wt)nder the schools under such a r6(jime hinguish and die out- 
right. 'I'he action involved in th(! rate-lull is one we believe to be wrong in 
principle and, as a matter of course, extremely injurious in practice; and it is 
more <rlearly a part of economy, to say nothing of justice, that the State shall 
furnish ccpial primary school advantages to the children of all classes, as 
regards wealth or station. . . ." 

"Your Committee find the bill vuidcr consideration proposes to provide for 
five months free school, in such districts as may have twenty or more cliildren 
therein, over live juid under twenty years of age; and a three months school in 
other districts, as now recjuired l)y law; and that the funds for the support of 
such sIimII be rjiised upon the taxable i)roi)erty of the district; and this deemed 
a fair and just mode of making the schools free." 

r. R. L. PiKiu'ic, Chainnan. 

Sentiment in the Senate was favorable and after the bill had 
been recommended to the committee on ])ublic instruction 
twice, it came to a vote in tlie Senate, Marcii 2, resultiniJi; in nays, 
0; and yeas, 25. It was immediately taken up by the House and 
after a second readinp; referred to the House committee on edu- 
cation. Two d;iys later, tlu^ connnittee reported and recom- 
meM(l(>(l (h;ii (he bill be (Miacted without amendment. This 
was most {)romisinn-. The next day it was recommitted for 
amendnuMit. It was twice amended and twelve days after 
being received by the House it came to a vote, resulting in 
nays, 9; and yeas, 71. This showcnl sentiment for free schools 
strong in both branches of the legislature, but most strong in the 
House as shown by the demand for an amendment. This pro- 
vided for nine months free school in districts having 800 or more 
children, and not less tlum live months in districts having ;U)-800 
children five to twenty years of age. In this form the bill went 
back to the Senate, where an attempt was made to amend closely 
to the original wt)rding of the bill. A Senate vote on the House 
amendment lost by 1 yea and 21 nays. The Senate insisted upon 
its demands and a conference committee was appointed which 
recommended the following: 3 months' free school in districts 
having less than 30 children ; 5 months in districts of 80 to 800 ; 



Michigan 119 

and nine months in districts having 800 or more children. On 
April first, the bill went to the governor and was approved by him 
on the third. Thus after nineteen years the constitutional pro- 
vision was fulfilled by a tardy legislature, and the public schools 
of Michigan changed from rate-bill schools to schools supported 
by property taxation. (House and Senate Jour., 1869) The 
more important section of this law is here given: 

Sec. 24 (2267). "They (the voters) shall also determine, at such annual 
meeting, the length of time a school shall l)c taught in their district during the 
ensuing year, whi<;h shall not be less than nine months in districts having eight 
hundred children over five and under twenty years of age, and not less than 
five months in districts having thirty to eight hundred children of like ages, nor 
less than three months in all other districts, on i)ain of forfeiture of their share of 
the two-mill tax and primary school fund, and whether by male or female 
teachers, or both, and it shall be the duty of the district board to estimate the 
amount necessary to be raised in addition to other school funds, for the entire 
support of such school, including fuel and oth(!r incidental expenses, and pre- 
vious to the second Monday in October, make a written report of the amount 
80 determined, to the supervisor of the township in which any said district or 
part of said district may be situated; and the same shall be levied, collected 
and returned in the same manner as township taxes. A school month, within 
the meaning of this act, shall consist of four weeks, of five days in each week, 
unless otherwise specified in the teacher's contract." 

The law left to the local option of voters the length of the term 
of school within the limits set by law, selection of teachers as to 
sex; it was required of the district board that they make esti- 
mates of school expenses and levy enough tax to make the schools 
free for the time they are in session. A penalty for failure to 
make the school free was the loss of the district's share of the two- 
mill tax and the interest from the Primary School Fund. The 
district board was empowered to admit non-resident pupils and 
fix and collect tuition from such pupils. The two-mill tax was re- 
tained, and the mode of distributing it was unchanged. The 
assessor was liable to the district, if he failed to assess this tax or 
other needful taxes to make schools free. 



EXTENSIONS AND CHANGES FROM FREE SCHOOL 
LAW OF 1869 TO PRESENT: THE QUESTION 
OF FREE SCHOOLS IN LATER CONSTI- 
TUTIONAL CHANGES 

The provisions of the constitutions of 1837 and 1850, and 
the incidents connected with their adoption have already been 
recounted. The constitution of 1850 required the legislature 
to submit the proposition of making a revision in the consti- 
tution to a popular referendum vote every seventeen years. 
The proposition was submitted in 1866, 1882 and 1907, and a 
constitutional commission of 18 was appointed in 1873 to prepare 
amendments. The vote of 1866 was affirmative and a conven- 
tion recommended important changes; but when the new docu- 
ment came before the people for ratification it was rejected. No 
convention was held in 1882, for the referendum was negative 
on the proposition. The work of the commission of 1873 was 
submitted to referendum vote in 1874 and overwhelmingly 
defeated. The referendum of 1907 was affirmative and an 
amended constitution was submitted and ratified in 1908. 

In each of these attempts to change the fundamental law, the 
section on free schools came up for discussion. It will be re- 
called that the constitution of 1850 made it incumbent on the 
legislature to establish free schools, which it finally did after 
nineteen years, instead of five. But that section remained in the 
constitution until a new document became law in 1908-1909. 

An examination of the discussions in the convention of 1867 re- 
veals the fact that no person spoke against free schools. The op- 
posite was true in 1850, for at least two men declared free schools 
excellent in theory but impossible in practice. No one opposed 
free schools, openly at least, because of fear of taxes upon prop- 
erty. The real fight centered upon other features, but the free 
school proposition really became the most discussed of any sec- 
tion in the whole article on education. 

On May 23, 1867, two resolutions were introduced bearing on 
this matter, one of which precipitated a spirited fight. This 
resolution read as follows : 
120 



Michigan l21 

" ... that the Committee on Education be instructed to inquire into 
the expediency of incorporating into the new constitution, section 5, of articld 
13, of the present constitution, relative to primary schools. . . ." 

The section referred to not only required that a school be 
maintained for at least three months in each district, but it pro- 
vided a severe penalty for any district failing to do this. The 
penalty was total loss of all public revenue. This proposition, 
and others brought forward to lengthen the period to four, six, 
eight, and nine months stimulated a discussion of the advisa- 
bility of retaining the provision regarding the penalty. It was 
argued that those districts which had least population would be 
unable to conform, and hence would be injured instead of helped 
by the provision. In reply it was said that most districts of small 
population had sufficient valuation to maintain schools, and that 
the penalty should be retained, not as a means of injury, but as a 
means of overcoming local indifference and stimulating local 
activity and interest in the maintenance of schools. Finally, 
after much discussion Mr. Lothrop explained the meaning of the 
provision as understood by the committee on education: 
"... I would say that the expression 'neglecting to main- 
tain such school ' does not apply to those places where by reason 
of casualty, or any other circumstances beyond the control of the 
district, the school is not kept. Neglect implies criminal omis- 
sion of certain duties. . . . Reading the section in this view, 
it seems to me that the provision is wise and just, and should 
commend itself to the approval of the Committee." (Committee 
of the Whole) 

About twenty amendments and changes in amendments were 
proposed before an agreement was reached. One member made 
an eloquent defense of free schools and warned against any 
possible retrograde movement. He recounted many of the argu- 
ments previously made and said that the people would not sub- 
mit to a backward step in this matter. The section as finally 
agreed upon reads as follows: 

"The legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which a 
school shall be maintained in each school district, in the State, free of chafge 
for tuition, at least /our months in the year. . . ." 

This differed from the provision of 1850 in two respects: (1) 
In the constitution of 1860 the system was to be provided within 



122 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

five years; and (2) the schools were to be maintained at least 
three months. After all the discussion, the whole constitution 
was rejected by referendum vote upon it. The whole proceeding 
is significant in that it shows that opinion had crystallized unani- 
mously in favor of free schools. (Debates in the Constitutional 
Convention of 1867) 

In the work of the Constitutional Convention of 1873, no fight 
was aroused. However, two changes were proposed. First, 
the minimum period for maintaining a free school was to be 
fixed, again, at three months; second, the clause referring to 
penalty for failure to maintain schools was to be amended so that 
any such districts would lose their share "of all funds arising 
from general taxes for the support of schools." Funds raised by 
the district, itself, if not a part of a general tax, would not be sub- 
ject to the penalty provisions. It is of interest to note that four 
years after free common schools had been established and after 
the average term of school was much above three months, a law 
was proposed to lower the required minimum below the actual 
minimum in almost all sections of the state. (Constitutional 
Commission Jour., 32) 

The convention of 1907 took much time discussing the article 
on education, but no opposition of any extent developed against 
any general provisions. Section 9 of Article XI of the proposed 
constitution was finally agreed upon, and is herewith given. 

"The legislature shall continue a system of primary schools whereby every 
District in the State shall provide for the education of its pupils without 
charge for tuition; and all the instruction in such schools shall be conducted 
in the English language. If any School District shall neglect to maintain a 
school within its borders, as prescribed by law, for at least five months a year, 
or to provide for the education of its pupils in another District, or districts for 
an equal period, it shall be deprived for the ensuing year of its proportion of 
the primary school interest fund." (Journal, Constitutional Convention of 
1907) 

Some features are worth especial notice as they appear here. 
The phrase "shall continue" recognizes the existence of free 
common schools by legislative provision of 1869. The pro- 
vision and maintenance of free schools are made mandatory by 
the fundamental law of the state. The minimum school period 
is fixed at five months for each district during each year. Pen- 
alty for non-compliance is fixed at loss of the district's share of 
income from the Primary School Fund for the "ensuing year." 



Michigan 123 

Inasmuch as this proposed constitution was ratified by popular 
referendum vote, this incorporated the free school principle in the 
Constitution. Forty years before, a free school law was enacted. 
The Constitution of 1850 placed the duty of making schools free 
within five years upon the legislature; the Constitution of 1909 
made the continued existence of free schools obligatory upon the 
people of the state. 



THE EXTENT TO WHICH SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN 
ARE NOW FREE 

After the passage of the School Law of 1869, which in its ap- 
pUcation abolished the remnants of rate-bills, other extensions of 
the free school principle began to appear in legislation. It had 
taken many years to place the free school law upon the statute 
books, but when once there it was backed by well-crystallized 
public opinion favorable to free schools. By 1870, free schools 
in Michigan meant schools of elementary and secondary grade, 
open to persons of school age residing within the district, without 
charge for tuition, and in which no sectarian instruction was 
given. In 1871 another characteristic was added, viz., that 
pupils must attend school for certain periods of each year and 
for a hmited number of years. In the same year still another 
feature was added. "The district board may purchase, at the 
expense of the District, such school books as may be necessary 
for the use of children whose parents are not able to furnish 
the same." (Laws, 1871, 251, 274) In 1889 the district board 
was authorized to furnish free text-books for all when the 
voters had authorized a tax levy for such purpose. (Act 147) 
In 1901, the township board of trustees was empowered "To 
admit all children of the township above the sixth grade, and to 
admit and provide rates of tuition for non-resident pupils, if they 
so elect," to township high schools. (Act 144, 1901) The laws 
of 1903 made an extension of free schools as they concern train- 
ing of teachers. It was provided that counties not having a 
normal school within their borders might, under certain restric- 
tions, receive permission from the superintendent of public in- 
struction, "to establish, maintain, and control county normal 
training classes for the purpose of giving free instruction and 
training in the principles of education and methods of teaching 
to residents of the county." (Act 241, P. A., 1903; School Law, 
1913, 169) By Act 224 of 1905, a school district was empowered 
to establish free day schools for the deaf, if the state superin- 
tendent gave permission. Where such schools are maintained 
the district shall be reimbursed for their expense from the state 
124 



Michigan 125 

treasury. A notable change was made in 1907 by a law provid- 
ing for free county schools of agriculture. They were to be es- 
tablished by the county and were to give instruction in agriculture 
and domestic economy. They are free to all persons, regardless 
of age, and they constitute an attempt to do something similar 
to what is done in the Folk High School of Denmark. (Act 35, 
1907) Free tuition to pupils of high school age when such pupils 
reside in a district not having a high school was provided in 1909. 
This part of the law was obligatory. It further empowered 
voters to authorize payment of transportation expenses for such 
children. (Act 65, 1909) 

A writer in the Michigan Journal of Education in 1853, and 
Oramel Hosford (who later became state superintendent) ex- 
pressed their doubts as to the wisdom of providing free schools 
and held it incompatible with free democracy to compel attend- 
ance at schools. These changes have both come, and one still 
further in 1911. By this law provision is made to keep the chil- 
dren of the indigent in school, by furnishing "relief" to the parents 
or relatives who are dependent on children. This is done by 
furnishing free text-books, "in addition to such other necessary 
assistance or support." The limit of this expense is three dol- 
lars a week for one child and not more than six dollars for a 
family. (Act 198, 1911) In the same year, the recent move- 
ment for vocational schools resulted in an act granting authority 
to establish and maintain "trade, vocational, industrial, and 
marine schools," and "to defray the cost and expense thereof by 
a general tax upon the taxable property of the school district." 
(Act. 22, P. A., 1911; School Laws, 1913, 171) The state also 
maintains free institutions for defectives and dependents, and 
incorrigibles. The normal schools, State University, and Agri- 
cultural College charge tuition. 



PART III 

INFLUENCING FACTORS IN THE DEVELOP- 
MENT OF FREE SCHOOLS 

POPULATION ELEMENTS 

In both states the predominant element from 1800 to 1870 
was of English ancestry. Hence, we find many evidences of the 
educational system of apprenticeship, and the wide variety of 
types of school support including several common in England. 
Endowments and tuition are examples. Taxation for appren- 
ticeship by the law of 1603 in England is again found in the Poor 
Law of 1795 for the Northwest Territory. In Connecticut some 
schools seem to have been free in colonial times and these same 
people knew of free schools in England. The English attitude 
toward universal education in the rudiments, that it was largely 
a matter for each individual parent to manage and support, still 
existed in both states far into the nineteenth century. Even 
Henry Barnard held a belief somewhat akin to this. 

The fact that English was the predominant language is im- 
portant. In both states there were groups of French Canadians. 
We find the superintendent of schools of Connecticut repeating 
complaints about the general indifference of this group towards 
education. No such record appears in Michigan. Yet had they 
been in the majority they would have constituted a factor to be 
taken into consideration. 

From 1850 to 1860, aliens and people of alien birth came into 
Connecticut in large numbers. (See Appendix, Table I) During 
the same decade this element began to increase in Michigan. 
In both states the alien group helped to increase illiteracy. The 
ratio of illiterates for Connecticut was about four native born to 
five alien born, notwithstanding the larger proportion of native 
born in the total population. In Michigan the ratio of illiterates 
was very similar. These illiterates constituted a living example 
of the need of more universal education. And the existing schools 
being unable to handle them, a demand arose for schools that 
126 



Influencing Factors 127 

could do more with the problem. As long as schools charged 
tuition, many of these people could not, and would not, send 
their children to school. And as long as no facilities existed for 
adult education, the adult alien iUiterates were not affected. 
Schools using rate-bills could not well cope with the problem of 
illiteracy. What was true of these schools and alien illiterates 
would also be true concerning any other group of illiterates. 

The number of negroes, both free and slave, was small in both 
states. The census for 1830 reported thirty-two slaves in Michi- 
gan, notwithstanding the prohibitory clause of the ordinance of 
1787. The same census reported twenty-five in Connecticut, 
and in 1840 but seventeen. Free negroes never exceeded 10,000 
in Connecticut during the period, and in 1853 there were but 
3,336 in Michigan. Two questions are involved. First, would 
the presence of either free or slave negroes constitute a factor of 
influence in securing free schools? Second, granting that these 
elements had an influence, was the number of negroes suffi- 
ciently large in either state to exert such an influence? In answer 
to the first question, we may note the following conditions: (1) 
Either slaves or free negroes helped to increase illiteracy; (2) 
slavery, per se, does not seem to have been a retarding or a favor- 
ing factor in free school development in some slave states. (See 
Knight, Influence of Reconstruction on Education in the South) 
(3) It is known that in Connecticut a hostile feeling existed 
against negro children attending schools taught by white women. 
This is shown by the Crandall incident of 1833, and the resulting 
legislation. (See Johnson's Connecticut, 370) However, the 
law of 1868 giving negroes equal free school privileges shows a 
change of sentiment due to the Civil War. (4) No evidence has 
been found that these elements constituted a factor of impor- 
tance, either pro or con, except so far as they increased illiteracy. 
In answer to the second question, it may be said that as late as 
1870 only about one fifty-third of Connecticut's population was 
negro. It does not seem possible that they could have exerted 
much influence either way. It seems, then, that excepting il- 
literacy, these elements constituted a negligible factor in the 
free school movement in both states. 

How did urban and rural elements of population affect free 
school development? In Connecticut some of the first evidences 
of free schools, in 1800-1870, appeared in urban localities. 



128 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Middletown, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Meriden, Bris- 
tol, Norwich and CoUinsville are examples. In Michigan the 
first free school law was enacted for the city of Detroit. Further, 
in the Constitutional Convention of 1850 some of the arguments 
against a state tax for free schools came from rural sections of 
the state. Many urban communities had free schools by 1867. 
The rural sections used rate-bills in 1864 in 40 per cent, of their 
districts; in 1866, in 46 per cent.; and in 1867, in 48 per cent. 
From 1859 to 1867, the percentage of rate-bill districts, rural and 
urban, averaged 48, but when many cities had secured special 
legislation for union districts, graded and high schools, and free 
schools, the rural communities yet retained the rate-bill. It 
was the urban communities that forced the issue of seculariza- 
tion of school support in 1850-1853, which caused the state to 
flatly declare that free public schools were not sectarian schools. 
The consolidation law of 1859 was an answer to the demand of 
urban communities, and the same localities were the first to de- 
velop free schools of secondary grade. In both states the urban 
population was most aggressive for free schools, and secured such 
schools, as a general thing, before the rural sections. 

It has been shown that the state of Michigan was peopled very 
largely by settlers from New York, Ohio, Vermont, Pennsylvania, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. New York, 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey were represented by 148,870 in 
1860, and the New England states by 30,923. Vermont led from 
New England, and New York from the Middle States. There 
are some evidences that educational conditions in these states 
influenced the movement for free schools in Michigan. First, 
rate-bills were in use in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and in Ohio until at least 1853, and probably later. 
So we find Michigan adopting this method of support in 
the law of 1829. Second, in all the states named a small district 
system was in operation and we find it also in Michigan. Third, 
the New England states had a town system of local government, 
and we find certain features of this embodied in the Michigan 
township and school district. In such states as New York, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and Ohio, 
there was a quite prevalent belief, held for years, that each com- 
munity should have a school. So we find the same belief in 
Michigan. People who came into Michigan from Connecticut 



Influencing Factors 129 

knew about the use of a state school fund and difficulties in the 
use of rate-bills. A larger portion of those from Massachusetts 
and Vermont would know about schools free from tuition charges. 
We find a state superintendent in New York in 1813 and a very 
weak state board and secretary in Connecticut, and in Massachu- 
setts in 1838. A similar office was established in Michigan, but 
the example of Prussia seemed to be the model suggesting it. 

A good example of direct transplanting of educational prac- 
tices is found in the Vermontville colony in Eaton County, 
Michigan. This settlement was composed of people from East 
Poultney, Vermont. They purchased their land "with Michigan, 
a church, and a school in their minds." During the very first 
year this colony had its schools, held in the log cabin of one fam- 
ily. Shortly after a log schoolhouse was erected and school was 
maintained for seven months in the year. (Mathews, 230) 
Another example is the Michigan school law of 1827, which 
places upon every community the responsibility of maintaining a 
school, said law being largely a copy of the Massachusetts law of 
1647 and the Connecticut law of 1650. "Of the 100 members of 
the Constitutional Convention of 1850, 81 were natives of New 
England and New York." (Putnam, 204) The superintendents 
of public instruction represented the following states: Pierce — 
New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; 
Sawyer — Massachusetts; Mayhew, Shearman, and Gregory — 
New York; Hosford — Vermont. Thus all of these men came 
from New York and New England. (Supt. Rept., 1880, 425, 
427, 428, 430, 431; McLaughlin, 34) These evidences show 
considerable general influence from New England and New 
York. If we select a few leaders who strongly favored free 
schools we find them from the same states. Pierce, Crary, and 
Hosford are examples. 

These states influenced the development of free schools in 
Michigan as follows: (1) by transplanting the idea that schools 
must be supplied; (2) by bringing into Michigan the rate-bill 
and public tax as means of school support; (3) by establishing 
certain elements of local control in schools; and (4) by contribu- 
ting important personahties. 

In both states some phase of the religious question became in- 
volved in matters concerning pubHc schools. In Connecticut 
before the Revolution, the clergy of the dominant church had 



130 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

considerable control over schools, often selecting the teachers. 
But before the Revolution, other sects were increasing and this 
control decreasing. Greene maintains that general seculariza- 
tion of government was accomplished by 1820. (Religious Liberty 
in Connecticut.) In 1791 the question of disposing of the land in 
the Western Reserve came before the legislature. It was then 
proposed that the land be sold and the proceeds given to the ec- 
clesiastical societies to pay their ministers. A somewhat similar 
bill was reintroduced in 1793 which failed to become a law, and 
another was introduced to give the money to the societies for the 
ministry and for schools. This caused much discussion pro and 
con. In 1794 it came up again. When finally settled, the money 
was given to the schools as a permanent fund. Nothing was 
given the ministry. Here, then, the issue of secularization was 
fought and won. Money was granted for schools supported and 
controlled by the public, but nothing for any religious denomina- 
tion. (Barnard, Am. Jour, of Education, 6:367-425) At no 
later time did a similar question assume importance in 
Connecticut. 

In Michigan the problem of religion and the schools appeared 
in three forms: (1) in the claim that the State University was 
irreligious; (2) regarding religious instruction in the schools; 
and (3) in the demand of certain sects for a share of the public 
funds to support their schools. The third only is germane to our 
discussion. The demand for such sharing of funds came from 
cities, very largely from Detroit. No evidence appears to show 
that the Catholics opposed the establishment of free schools in 
Detroit but, on the contrary, Father Kundig, ''a most influential 
and estimable Catholic priest," was a leader for free schools. 
Knowing that this church has always insisted on direct teaching 
of religion, we have strong reason to believe that Father Kundig 
would not have lent his support to the movement if he had known 
that such instruction would ultimately be eliminated from the 
schools. (Detroit Report, 1870-1872, 121) In 1844, the read- 
ing of the Bible as a text-book in the schools aroused 
vigorous discussion and protest. If all had been Catholics, 
or Presbyterians, or some one other sect, there might have 
been agreement. But we have shown that this was not the case. 
Not even the single largest church membership in Michigan 
(Methodist) could be considered a dominant factor. As it was,. 



Influencing Factors 131 

the "lines were drawn openly between Protestants and Catho- 
lics." ''The excitement ran so high that citizens on both sides 
did not hesitate to declare openly that unless their particular 
views were carried out in the matter they would gladly see the 
entire school system swept away from the city." The board of 
education, in 1845, resolved that teachers might read the Bible 
without comment, and if they did comment they were to be 
removed from school. (Ibid., 125) In 1852, certain additions 
of territory were made to the city, the population of which 
was mostly Catholic. This was also the occasion of remodel- 
ing the city charter. The Catholics then demanded a share 
of school money for their own schools, urging that the public 
schools weakened "the fealty of the child to the doctrine of the 
Catholic Church." (Ibid., 128) The city press took up the 
matter. It was answered that it was not a part of the gov- 
ernment's duty to foster a state religion or any religious doctrine 
by taxing people to support teachers of religion. A prominent 
leader of the Catholics was J. O'Callaghan. The matter was 
finally carried to the state legislature, as well as to the local 
election in Detroit. In the latter, the Independent (secular) 
ticket was elected by 2,000 majority, which settled the question 
of division of funds in Detroit. The attitude of the seculars 
was stated by Levi Bishop, president of the board of education, as 
follows: "Secular education, when conducted as ours is, is not 
injurious though unaccompanied by positive religious agencies. 
It purifies the soul and cherishes the most ennobling sentiments; 
while to place our schools under positive rehgious agencies would 
be placing the youth of the nation, and, very soon after, the na- 
tion itself, under ecclesiastical supremacy. What have public 
schools to do with rehgious or sectarian pecuharities? As well 
might you teach in school the partisan creeds of the day, instead 
of a lofty and universal nationality. If there be any religious 
denominations who are willing to admit that parental and family 
instructions and example, the church and its officers, during 
three-fourths of the time, are not able to withstand the silent 
heresies of horn-books and grammars during the other fourth 
they will find it difficult to persuade many that their religion is 
the special favorite of heaven." (Supt. Report, 1853, 161) 

This controversy was given state-wide significance by its being 
taken to the legislature. A "Memorial — relative to the division 



132 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

of the School Fund" was there presented. It is in this connection 
that it comes into most vital relationship with free schools. 
Note the words of the petitioners: "... notwithstanding 
the (Constitution gunriiiitoos liberty of conscience to every citizen 
of the State, yet our Public School Laws compel us to violate 
our conscience, or dc)Miv(^ us unjustly of our share of the Public 
School Funds, and also impose on us taxes for the support of 
schools, which, as a matter of (;onscience, we cannot allow our 
chiklrcn to attend." Attention is then called to the fact that in 
Monroe and Detroit 2,500 children are educated at the expense 
of their parents and by contribution because of this situation. 
"Your petitioners woidd not wish to be understood as being op- 
posed to education; on the contrary they are prepared to bear 
every reasonable burden your Honorable Body are willing to im- 
pose on them to promote the cause of education, provided that 
our schools be free indeed. Put they do not consider schools 
free when the law imposes upon parents the necessity of giving 
their children sucii an education as their conscience cannot ap- 
prove of. Put that your Honorable liody nuiy not be ignorant 
of what they understand by free schools, your petitioners wish to 
say that in their oi)inions, schools can be free only when the busi- 
ness of school teaching be placed on the same legal footing as the 
other learned professions, when all may teach who will, their suc- 
cess de])ending, as in other cases, on their fitness for their i)ro- 
fession, and the satisfaction they nuiy render the public; that 
in all cases the parent be left free to choose the teacher to whom 
he shall intrust tlu^ education of his child as he is left to choose his 
physician, his lawyer, etc., that each person teaching in any pid)- 
lic school in the State should be entitled to draw from the public 
school rund, such sums as the law might provide for every child 
taught by the month, cjuarter or otherwise, on producing such 
evidence as the law might require in such cases. Schools estab- 
lished on such principles arc what your petitioners understand by 
free schools." (Supt. Report, 1853, 190-191) (Italics not in 
original) 

In accordatu-e with this petition a bill was introduced to make a 
division of school funds as prayed for. The Senate committee 
to whom it was referred reported "respectfully recommend that it 
do not pass." The conunittee then set forth its reasons for so re- 
porting. They nuiy be sunnued up as follows: (1) State laws 



Influencing Factors 133 

are general in character, founded on equal justice to all; so also 
is the school system, free to all sects; (2) secular instruction only 
is required in these schools; (3) the opening of the school system 
to such a system of distribution would mean that every sect would 
establish its own sectarian schools and get state aid, which would 
weaken the present system; (4) such aid to sectarian schools is 
forbidden by the Constitution. Art. 4, sect. 40, i. e., it is contrary 
to state policy and law, well-defined; (5) it is the duty of every 
citizen to contribute to the education of people for citizenship; 
(6) the proposed law would surrender all control over coiu'se of 
study, because it allows any individual to teach school who de- 
sires to, if he can satisfy his constituency; (7) the particular bill 
is presented by one sect which claims the right to inculcate its 
peculiar views; (8) the general result would be to change the 
primary school system "from schools of secular and useful learn- 
ing," to "Theological and Religious Seminaries." (Supt. Report, 
1853, 191-3) 

Reports were also made by the House Committee on Educa- 
tion, a majoi'ity and a minority report l)eing suljmitted. The 
majority report was opposed to the proposed division of funds and 
gave the following reasons for it: (1) the state superintendent of 
public instruction had not recommended any important (changes, 
and he believes the present system is operating successfully; 
(2) the present system extends equal privileges to all, rich and 
poor, alien or citizen; (3) the recent tax will, it is believed, en- 
able all schools to meet the constitutional requirements of free 
schools for at least three months; (4) the proposed change would 
allow any individual with qualifications to estal)lish a school 
partly supported by school funds, yet in competition with the 
present system; (5) such a change would introduce confusion 
and discord into the present system; (6) the opinion of the people 
of the state does not demand such a change. 

In these two reports, it becomes quite clear that the conception 
of what constitutes a free school was not like that described l)y 
petitioners, but one giving secular instruction and open to all with- 
out payment of tuition. The reports further show a determina- 
tion not to allow sectarianism to get a foothold in schools already 
free from it and its influences. 

The minority report declared: (1) " Every system of instruc- 
tion involves instruction in some system of religion, and, there- 

10 



134 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

fore, denominational or sectarian, or none at all, which is in- 
fideUty" ; (2) there are no points of agreement among the various 
denominations; (3) the present system compels parents to subject 
their children to some sort of religious instruction, even though 
it is against their wishes ; (4) because of this some have sent their 
children to private schools if they could afford it, and if not, have 
allowed them "to grow up without the knowledge of books, rather 
than have them instructed in what the parent believes to be a 
damning heresy"; (5) in one community of Catholics the in- 
struction is practically Catholic and does not meet any objections; 

(6) a Protestant community could enjoy the same privileges; 

(7) to withdraw pupils from a secular school is a religious duty 
which cannot be abridged by law; (8) the plan would work all 
right except in sparsely settled rural districts. Such were the 
arguments of the minority report made by J. O'Callaghan. 
(Supt. Report, 1853, 198) The bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church was aroused by the action of the Catholics and also 
presented a petition to the legislature bearing on the same ques- 
tion. The language becomes almost satirical. Some sentences 
are quoted from it. "But if your honorable bodies see fit to 
overturn and destroy that system which has been heretofore so 
carefully guarded, and which has introduced into every occupa- 
tion and profession some of the most distinguished men of the 
State, and which has brought to the door of the poor man the 
means of educating his children; and if the priests and clergymen 
are to take the place of the common school teacher, and the state 
is to assume the duty, through them, of extending and building 
up religious differences and fomenting strife and contention, then 
the undersigned (most reluctantly) would claim to have a share in 
the work." He further states that if such division were made, 
his church would teach its own doctrine and secure as many 
clergymen to do this as they could. (Supt. Report, 1853, 190- 
200; 205-206) 

The proposed bill did not become a law. The various ques- 
tions at issue in the secularization of the school came up in vari- 
ous forms from time to time, even getting into the courts long 
after free schools were established. The fight in the early fifties, 
here described, was practically final for the most important issue 
involved, i. e., state aid to reUgious schools. (See Appendix, 
Sectarian Definition of Free Schools) 



Influencing Factors 135 

It now remains to indicate the influence of this movement to 
secularization on the development of free schools. Whatever 
might have been the influence, it is very evident that by 1850- 
1860 Michigan had a system of schools in which many were free 
and in which no sectarian instruction could come. Free meant 
"without charge for tuition" up to that time; then it came to 
mean a secular school. Whatever may have been the merits of 
the Catholic definition of free schools in their petition to the legis- 
lature, the state did not accept it. Whatever may have been the 
merits of the claim that to deny state aid and cause children to 
attend a secular school could not be enforced, this was not given 
recognition. By 1875 a compulsory education law was upon the 
statute books as well as the free school law of 1869. The move- 
ment towards such a result was begun in 1837, when the system 
was established. As the state grew in population and resources, 
the same thing occurred that occurred in New York and some 
other states and the issue was fairly met. It did not cause so 
much strife as in New York, but it was met and settled. The 
first result was that not only was a free school a school without 
rate-bills, but it was also a secular school. There is another re- 
sult worthy of notice. The well-defined issue of 1853 never 
came up again. The settlement of it was apparently decisive. 
This points out a third result. It prevented to a large extent the 
growth of petty differences in religion in schools. Even the 
State University did not have the severe criticism directed 
towards it that existed previously. Again, it prevented the dis- 
sipation of the school funds by directing them into a multitude 
of channels, all to no purpose. The Primary School Fund was 
small enough as it was, and if it had been divided, it is probable 
that its usefulness would have decreased. 

In 1850-1870, the clergy in Connecticut again appeared to 
have some influence in school matters, but largely as individuals. 
Through all of this period many clergymen were school visitors. 
Clergymen frequently discussed matters of education in their 
sermons. We find the committee of the Friends of Universal 
Education in 1868 making an appeal to the ministry to help in 
bettering schools, and that later Secretary Northrop stated that 
they did advocate free schools. (See Appendix) The best evi- 
dence is the action of the Hartford Ministerial Association of 
1867, urging and demanding reforms in schools, including aboli- 



136 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

tion of rate-bills. (See Appendix) Evidence is lacking to show 
a similar activity of the ministry in Michigan. The religious 
groups, including the clergy, then affect this movement in the 
following ways : (1) In Connecticut, in forcing the issue of secu- 
larization so that the income from the sale of the Western Reserve 
was given entirely to the schools; (2) in Michigan, in forcing the 
legislative committees, in 1853, to define a free school as a secular 
school; and (3) in Connecticut, by much influence exerted by the 
clergy through sermons and memorials for improved conditions 
including free schools. 



THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHERS 

No doubt large numbers of teachers in one-room schools never 
published any expression on the question of free schools. Yet, if 
one considers the various difficulties involved in collecting rate- 
bills, from which part of the teacher's salary came, it is not easy 
to understand how they could ever favor the use of rate-bills. 

In Connecticut the State Teachers' Association and various 
local organizations of teachers considered the matter from time 
to time, and individuals contributed articles to the Common 
School Journal favoring free schools. In 1851, a convention of 
school committees and friends of education, held at South 
Coventry, petitioned the state legislature for changes in the 
school system, chief of which were the abolition of tuition, and 
the entire support of schools by public funds and taxation. They 
gave a lengthy argument opposed to the tuition and exemption 
clauses in school laws, and declared these devices to be "im- 
politic, anti-republican, and suicidal. " They reviewed the action 
of several states in using taxation, and submitted a proposed law 
for the reorganization of schools and school support. The peti- 
tion was signed by one hundred and seventy-two persons. (Conn. 
Kept., 1851, 79-80) 

In the same year, Camp, Barnard, and others discussed school 
support before the State Teachers' Association. More taxation 
and less tuition were advocated. Barnard said concerning the 
schools, "They need not be free, but they must be cheap." 
(Conn. Common School Journal, 1851, 57, 88) The visit of Com- 
missioner Barney to Connecticut in 1854, and his advocacy of 
free schools has been mentioned. The Journal for 1854 contains 
two articles by Alfred Hall on "The School Fund and Taxation," 
urging complete reorganization of school support, and a return to 
town management of schools. (113-115, 162-165) In the same 
year, the editor of the Journal urged free schools in the following 
words : 

"Keep them before the people, let us unfurl our banner, and bear it aloft 
with the motto 'Our Schools: They must he made good enough for the richest and 
cheap enough for the poorest.' " {Journal, 172) 

137 



138 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

An editorial in the Journal for 1854 very earnestly discussed 
school support, favoring taxation and abolition of rate-bills. 
"The taxes for the support of schools must fall on property and 
not on the parents." {Journal, 1854, 315) A year later, the 
State Teachers' Association sent a memorial to the legislature 
asking for changes in school laws including abolition of rate-bills. 
These demands resulted in a codification of school laws in 1856, 
which abolished the school societies, and reestablished the town 
tax, at one-tenth mill on the dollar. In the campaign for the 
Bristol Union School, Barnard, Camp, Philbrick, and Rev. Rich- 
ardson took an active part. (Journal, 1855, 281-282) In 1847, 
Barnard helped in the Hartford campaign for free schools. 

An article signed by E. F. S. in the Journal for 1855, discussed 
"How Shall Our Schools be Supported?" It was a strong argu- 
ment against tuition and for taxation for school support. (Conn. 
Common School Journal, 1855, 229-230. See Appendix) In 1855 
a speaker at one of the exercises of the high school at Waterbury, 
probably a teacher or school official, discussed free schools. The 
argument favored the establishment of both elementary and 
secondary schools on the free school basis. (Journal, 1855, 260- 
263) In 1856 an organization of teachers and friends of educa- 
tion of Fairfield County, adopted the following resolutions : 

" Whereas, The development and welfare of society depend upon the educa- 
tion of its members, and as it is not only the right, but the duty of society, to 
educate the masses of which it is composed, therefore, 

Resolved, That the State should provide for a complete system of Free 
Schools by a direct Property Tax. 

Resolved, That aU friends of popular education, and especially the clergy, 
and editors and conductors of the periodical press, be hereby invited to present 
to the people of Fairfield County the advantage and importance of a system of 
Free Schools." {Journal, 1856, 178) 

The same year the State Teachers' Association adopted the 
resolution previously referred to, approving the proposed free 
school laws. The most pointed article appeared in the Journal 
(1856) — on "Charity in Education" with particular reference to 
conditions in New Haven. It also referred to the influence of the 
School Fund, the levying of taxes, and the consolidation into a 
union district.^ 



^ "First, the idea, dangerous as it is absurd, that the public schools were for 
the poor, existed in New Haven, three years since, quite commonly. This 
depressed the schools and prevented real advancement. The children of the 



Influencing Factors 139 

In 1857, Mr. M. T. Brown, principal of the Webster School of 
New Haven, made an address on free schools at the State Asso- 
ciation. The remarks were laudatory and interestingly enough 
credited much to the Pilgrims of Plymouth for the idea of free 
schools; and urged that all schools of the state be made free. 
(Journal, 1857, 97-102) At the State Association meetings in 
June, 1857, and June, 1859, the Rev. Richardson made addresses 
on free schools, favoring their complete establishment. (Ibid., 
1857, 211; 1859, 240) In 1858 the Association appointed two 
committees to deal with this question. One of these, composed 
of Messrs. Strong, Balcam, Brigham, Peck, and Allen, was to 
petition the legislature to abolish rate-bills and make the schools 
free. " Gov. Minor, Prof. Camp, and E. F. Strong were appointed 
a committee to prepare a circular on the subject of free schools. " 
(Ibid., 1858, 212) 

This evidence shows that the organized teachers of the state 
were favorable to free schools, and that their attitude had some 
influence. In the final campaign they again declared their atti- 
tude in a similar way. They then adopted a comprehensive plat- 
form declaring for abolition of tuition, taxation for school support, 
high schools, normal schools, consolidation of small districts, a 
state board of education, protection and education for dependent 
and defective children, and agitation until these ends were 
attained, (Conn. Rept., 1868. See Appendix) The resulting 
legislation followed much the lines marked out in this platform. 



wealthy never saw the inside of a public school, and so a common school came 
to be considered almost a public charity, and many parents, who had more of 
pride than of means, sent their children to private schools. Thus the schools 
lost what must be the support of a public system, the moral support of the com- 
munity. What wonder that the children were rude and impudent who at- 
tended the common schools? . . . The child will not respect what the father 
despises. No such idea prevails now. Our most intelligent and most wealthy 
citizens support, and send their children to the public schools. . . . 

Second, until recently the city was divided into several school districts, each inde- 
pendent of the other. . . . The city of New Haven now comprises but one 
district. . . . 

Third, a direct tax is laid upon all the taxable property of the city, for the support 
of the public schools. It may seem surprising, yet it is true, that from the year 
1835 to 1849, inclusive, no tax for the support of schools was levied upon the 
property of the citizens. . . . The ruinous, and unwise policy of exacting 
an advance fee or tax from each child at the commencement of each term, a tax 
of from $.25 to $1.75 per scholar was adhered to, through those fourteen years 
of decline, and the tax thus gathered, together with the amount received from 
the State Fund, gave the schools an imcertain life, and tended to degrade the 
system more and more in the minds of all right-thinking men. " (Conn. Com- 
mon School Journal, 1856, 66, 67) 



140 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

In Michigan, year after year, the meetings of the State Associa- 
tion convened and in only a few cases did it consider the matter 
of free schools. In 1858 a paper was read before the Association 
on "Ought Our Schools to be Free?" the writer hohUng 
that only under very peculiar conditions should they be free. 
Dr. A. Winchell, of the State University, expressed grave 
doubts as to the wisdom of making the schools free, and held 
that a great school fund would be an injury rather than a help 
to education. Professor Oramel Hosford, later state superin- 
tendent of public instruction, concurred in these views, although 
he later changed his attitude, as has been previously shown. Dr. 
Winchell stated, "If education costs nothing, it will be estimated 
accordingly." Yet the Association at the same meeting unan- 
imously passed a resolution "that the rate-bill system, in its 
then form, ought to be abolished." 

A decade later, the Association, without an opposing voice, re- 
solved "that school rates should be abolished, and the funds 
needed to make our schools free to all should be raised by an im- 
partial tax by the state. Public opinion had ripened. . . . " 
(Putnam, 120) (Barnard, Joiirnal, 15: 637) This would indicate 
that just before the abolition of rate-bills in 1869, the teachers 
who were members of the State Association were favorable to free 
schools. This group, however, would not include hundreds of 
teachers in rural sections who shifted about from year to year and 
did not remain long in the profession. The attitude of this group 
is not known, and it is doubtful if they had much influence in 
finally securing free schools. Particular men in the teaching 
group had much influence. Such a man was John D. Pierce, 
both minister and teacher. The county superintendents, after 
1867, exerted much influence favorable to free schools, as is shown 
by the work of this office as a part of the state administrative 
system. 

In the Michigan Journal of Education and Teachers' Magazine 
for 1853 (148), it was stated that "it was one of the duties of the 
teacher to create an influence in favor of free schools. " Whether 
they did as an entire group, we may seriously question. Yet one 
is inclined to think that a short experience with rate-bill districts 
would cause them to be favorable to tax-supported schools. That 
the sentiment of even prominent men was divided is very evident. 
In the Michigan Journal of Education of 1853 (256-259), there 



Influencing Factors 141 

appeared an unsigned editorial on "The School Fund." It seri- 
ously questioned the wisdom of such a fund and of the free school 
policy. The resident editor was J. M. (Jregory, and his associate 
was Professor E. O. Haven, of Ann Arbor.* One feels some 
sympathy with the writer's argument about attendance, when we 
consider the present inefficiency of our laws for compulsory educa- 
tion. Most of the discussions of members of the teaching 
group, so far as they have been found, which deal with free s(^hools, 
are favorable to schools supported by a property tax and opposed 
to the rate-bills. In a few instances there are notable excep- 
tions, like the one quoted above, and such expressions must have 

'The School Fond. — "The general question as to the policy of sup- 
porting the common schools entirely by public fimd or tax, is one of no ordinary 
importance, and is now awakening the attention of leading edui^ationista. 
From a consideration of general principles, we would say, let education be so 
cheap as to bring it within the reach of all, l)ut let it not be entirely gratviitous, 
unless we wish it to bo lightly esteemed. What (toats nothing is usually counted 
worth nothing. The l)usiness of educating his children is the jieculiar privi- 
lege and duty of the i)areiit, the concurrent voice of mankind accords to the 
parent the sole and absolute right to choose teachers, appoint the s(^hools, and 
airect the studies of his offwjjring. The State, witnout dispute, has a deep 
interest in the education of its citizens, and may or does, very properly on)i)loy 
its power and resoun^es to establish and endow institutions of learning and sys- 
tems of {)ublic instruction. But since the State cannot 8Ui)ers(!d(^ the; rights or 
duty of the j)arent without palpable tyraiuiy, the (piestion becoiru^s of practical 
importance, how far it can successfully and efficiently aid him." 

"Will schools absolutely gratuitous best secure the education of the people? 
To this question, common sense and common experience l)oth reply in the nega- 
tive. In this discussion, we should except desiK)tic governments whicih can not 
only provide but compel attendance by law." "Where schools have been 
made wholly gratuitous they have soon lost their hold upon the public sym- 
pathy. They have been regarded as public institutions, to be looked after by 
public officers, while those parents who have felt a real interest in the education 
of their children have established private schools or patronized at a great ex- 
pense those established by others." "If it be said that any prif^e, however 
small, will prevent the attendance of some children, we reply that schools free 
as air will not secure a universal and proper attention in a (iommunity where 
public sentiment does not commend it. The universal education of the people 
is to be attained, not by the attraction of free schools alone, but by the con- 
straining power of a public opinion, that shall pour its scorn and its many- 
voiced condemnation as sternly upon the parent who shall starve the soul of his 
child as it does now upon him who fails his children with bread." "Not only 
is education generally diffused in those countries and communities where a just 
appreciation of its benefits prevails, but everywhere we meet with poor men, 
who, impressed with the high advantage of knowledge, contrive amidst all their 
poverty to give their sons and daughters a most liberal and extensive course of 
study, and are themselves blessed and ennobled by the very strenuousness of 
their efforts. To the same conclusions, also, tends the notorious fact that the 
eons and daughters of the wealthy, whose education, however expensive, costB 
the parents no felt sacrifice, and hence fails to claim their f)ersonal care, are 
often the poor scholars in our schools." "Where the ignorance or inability of 
the parent left the child with no provision for its education, the State should 
without doubt supply the lack. " 



142 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

had considerable influence. School superintendents, county 
superintendents, and state superintendents were, as a group, 
favorable to free schools. As to the great rank and file of teach- 
ers, we have no evidence as to their attitude. 

The Connecticut Common School Journal from 1850 to 1859 
contained many articles relative to free schools and support of 
schools by taxation. {Journal, 1855, 281-282; 2G0-2C3; 229- 
230; 309-11; 1854, 207, 315-316, 3GG; 185G, G6-G7; 1854, 172- 
173, 113-115; 1851, 88; 1857, 97-102, 211; 1858, 212; 1859, 
240; 185G, 178-188, 1G9-170; 18G3, 131) This journal varied 
in circulation very much; however it was extensive enough to 
exchanges coi)i(VS with many lunwspapers of tbc state. Through 
this means the expression of some newspapers were learned, and 
reprinted in the journal. In an editorial in this journal for 1855, 
then* ai)i)o;irs an ajipeal for free schools, including the following 
citation fi-om the Union. 

"A work of great importance Ijcfore our next legislature, is that of placing 
our schools on a solid atul firm foundation. Connecticut ought to have the 
best free schools in the world. It is idle to talk of the magnificent fund of the 
State. It is easy to lift it off. Let the legislature just follow np the recom- 
mendations of democratic governors and commissioners of the school fund and 

TAX PllOPKHTY OF TlIK STATIC SO THAT EACH TOWN SHALL BAISK BY T.VX AS 

MUCH AS IS DRAWN FitoM THK FUND, and the entering wedge is fairly fixed." 
"Let no rich, crusty old bachelor make up wry faces at this proposition, and 
fret about being ia.xod to support other people's chiUiren." "This tax is the 
best insurance on property wliich the legislature can secure." {Journal, 1854, 
172-173) 

The Advertiser, of Middletown, Connecticut, contained an 
article urging abolition of tuition, and general educational better- 
ment. This same article indicates advances in free schools made 
in the other large towns and cities of the state. (Cited in Journal, 
1854, 204) In the Christian Secretary for 1855, appeared an 
article describing and conunending the consolidation of districts 
at Bristol into a union free school district. This article also men- 
tions the fact that free transportation ivas furnished pupils who 
resided at a distance from the school. {Journal, 1855, 281-282. 
See Appendix) In the Common School Journal for 1854, the edi- 
tor wrote of the Telegraph, of Windham County, as follows: 

"The Windham County Tdcaraph, a paper which always receives a hearty 
welcome to our tablcy for it seldom fails to bring somctlung of imjiortance on 
the subject of education. I'roliably no paper in the State publishes so much 
matter respecting the improvement of common schools." {Journal, 1854, 334) 



Influencing Factors 143 

In 1855 the editor copied two articles from the Norwich Ex- 
aminer on school improvement, and called it "a paper which is 
doing excellent service in our cause." {Journal, 1855, 186, 187, 
204) He commended the press for its attitude in 1856, as follows : 

" Nearly every paper printed in the State comes to our table. We are grati- 
fied to see an increasing amount of matter in their cohnnna on the subject of 
schools, and almost everything said regarding education is on the right side. 
Several editors would gladly represent the cause more fully to their readers if 
they had the materials at hand. Some of our enterprising teachers have sent 
valuable contributions to different newspapers. Shall we not have more of this 
good work? In this way the people are reached and enlightened. Last week 
no less than six of our papers contained important articles respecting the inter- 
ests of common schools. Some of these articles exceeded a column in length, 
and were characterized by sound and practical views. " (Journal, 1858, 62) 

Further testimony was given in the Journal for the same year, 
first in an editorial commending the press, and second by citations 
from various newspapers. Those mentioned were: The New 
Haven Register, Norwalk Gazette, New Haven Journal, The Pal- 
ladium, The Willimantic Journal, and the Religious Herald. One 
of these seems to have published some material opposed to the 
movement. The following citations give the evidence itself about 
these periodicals: 

"We take pleasure in referring again to the agency of the press in promoting 
the cause of popular education. The New Haven Register recently came out 
with a very sensible article on free schools. It was called out by an attempt to 
fix an admission fee to the free schools. We quote from it the following: 'The 
idea of a per capita tax on children attending the public schools, probably had 
its origin in what the committee consider the necessities of the district — rather 
than increase the direct taxes now levied on the property holders for school 
purposes. But we do not see how that would help the matter — ^while the tend- 
ency would be to confirm the principle object to the new system, that its ad- 
vantages (if it has any) are grasped by the prosperous and wealthy, to the ex- 
clusion of those for whose benefit our common school plan was designed. The 
requirement of an admission fee, would drive many children from the Eaton 
and Webster schools, whose places would no doubt be filled by those having 
ability to pay — but it would be a practical subversion of the free school system. 
We are glad that the proposition was rejected.' " 

The following was cited from the Norwalk Gazette: 

"There are other parents who would be glad to have their children under- 
stand those branches of study which would qualify them for business life, who 
are absolutely too poor to pay their term Ijills, and who do, on that account 
keep them out of school. But were the privileges of the schools free, they 
would rejoice in sending their children. It may be urged that the law makes 



144 Dcvclopmrni of Free Schools in the (United States 

proviHioii for (Iiohc wlio iiro iiiial>l(^ to jmy lor Mio HohooliiiK of (lioir cliildron. 
Hut (iiom am iiiniiy who iiro, and who fool thornHolv<^H to \h-. unal)lo to pay, hut. 
who iiro uiiwiiliiiK to ho oouHidorod |)a.uporH, and thoroforo do not Hcnti thoir 
rhihh'on to HohooL . . . And iih tho jtropoily of tlio Htalo hart to ho taxed 
to huild and NUHtain priHOUH, and to hriiifi; juHtico and puniHli tho.so who coinniit 
critno, it will l><^ found Icnh liur<l(MiHoni(> to pay a lax to (>du('at(^ IIh^ children, 
than to puninh lh<< intMi, after lh(^ uiXMliawitod (^hil(lr(M) havo f^rown up to man- 
hood. Ah tlit'r(> iH jiroporly onounh in tho Stale to cducato all ilH childron, 
oducalion Hhould Ihon ho aw froo aH wator, \\ft,\\{ niid air. Tho proptMly of 
liadiolorH, and oIIum'h who liavt^ no ohildron to (>ducatti, ounhl to h(>Ip »idu('ato 
ol hor pooplo'H childron. Ah odiu^ation rondiTH lift' and property inoro Hocuro, it 
in juHt and i)ro|)or that woaltii nhould ho taxod It) pay for education. Our State 
will lun'or nMioh tho hinhoHt point of olovation, till hIio han adopted a Hynlonj 
of froo hcIiooIh. And the Hoon(>r hIio coiuoh into Huh nioaHuro, the hotter for her 
and hor childrtMi. " 

III ISr»7 llorjicc Mjum mimI Henry HMriiiird visitod Micliij^an 
aii<l JuldrcMscd Mk' iiMMnixMs of iJic Sl;i((' 'rcMcluMs' AH.sociMiion. 
""riu'v mIso shjircd in (li(> discussion. Bjtnuird wits elected to lion- 
orniv nuMMluMsiiip in (he nssocinlion. Mann lectured before tho 
entire association one evening on "Tc^acliers' NFotives." During 
tho (hilly diwUHKions he spoke i\ few times on (lie elenieid Miy cur- 
rieulum, the need of ven(il;i( ion, and fa.vored Union schools, hi 
the same !issend)ly, one niend)er made reference (,0 (he fact that 
he had i'eceiv<'d much heiielit from readinj; Mr. Mann's rejxH't. 
]\lr. UMrnjird w.ms .'isked (o address the entire associal ion, hut it is 
iiol, recorded (h.-ii he did so. During (he gcMieral discussion, ho 
spoke in f;i\ «>r of |)rofeHsi()iuil training of teaehers. A resolution 
was ])assed teiulering (he (hanks of (.he associa.(ion to "Ilorae© 
M.'iiin and o( Ium- friends of educ.'idon from abroad. " (Mich../<»ur, 
of Eduoition <;//</ TriiclKis' M (uja^i nc, Vol. I: lAO 159; 160; Kif)) 

OccMsionnl references .'ire found in (lu> re])or(s of (he sta(.e super- 
in((Miden( (o (he movenuMit in <\'is(('rn s(a((*s. In (he Michigan 
Jourual of luluailioii f«>r ISAd {',V,\S) i-eference is ma.(h' (o Uar- 
nard's la((M- ailitude o\\ the rale-hill problem and it is re<'eivod 
fjivoiMhly. Such l)iogr.'i])hers of Horace Mann as Hinsdale and 
Huhhell say no! lung direclly ahoul his iidluence in Michigan, 
I'rom such eyidence on<> «'ouId no( conclude Ihal (heir indtieneo 
was yery great in (he d(>velo])men(. of fre(> schools in Michigan. 

'I'heso evidences s(«tMn (o show that: (1) Organized teachers 
geiuM"ally fa.vored free schools; (2) occasionally indivi»iuals op- 
p(Ks<>d free schools; [',\) educational ])eriodicMls gave considerable 
H\i|)]>ort (() free schools; and (1) (he induence of JSlann and 
B.'irnard in Michigan was very slighl. 



RIOLATION Oh' INDIIS'IMMI'IS AND 'V\IK LAH()I{ 

MOVi'iMi'iNT 'I'o 'nil: I)i;vi;i.()I'mi:n'I' ov 

I'HKK SCHOOLS 

liy ISIO, ill ( 'oiiiiccMciil, i'}{),\)f)F) priHoiiH w«M(^ ('njj;ii,j:;('(l in jiKi'i- 
cultural p\M'Huil,s niid 27/.l."{'JI in nuiniirjicliiiinn mikI IrjuhiH. (Tjihlo 
I, ApjKMidix) In \iilv.r (I(m-;uI(>h Ui<^ nuinlxu- in inninirjM'l niiiifi; 
iiicn>aH«(l. 'I'lii.s wius (,li(» oul.i^niic of llic indiiHlrinl icvoliil-ion in 
(.lie N(nv Mii^lniid hIuI.ch. Two h<'I.m oI proMcniH nic included in 
tliiH Hil.Mul.ion. l"'irM(:, liow did MiiH rcvohil ion iil'ic<'l. i.\\r d(H'('Io|)- 
iiuMil, of ))nl)li(t rr('(^ scliool.M, iind hccoikI, vvliiiX did liihorin^ men do 
iilioul, {,\w (|ii('H(,ion of IViM^ hcIiooIh? I'Iim'Ii of (JicHc will Ixi <'OII- 
aid(M(Ml. 

( !oiiii(^<^(,iciit Iroin (he l)('>j,innin>z; luid Icf^iHl.'iliwI conccininjr iii- 
duH(-ry, nnd iiidiiMl,ri;d ('ducal. ion ol I, lie .'ipprcnliccHliip (ypc. I^y 
ISIO I.S12, (,li(? dcvclopnicnl, of Liui I'licloiy nyMl,<Mn compelled Mm; 
(Miiiclineiil, of 11 <-|iild luhor law. In IH'I'J l,li<^ Hccn^liiiy of (,lie 
board of <'oniniiHHion(»rH urK<'<l Ibal, no <'liildren under Ioui-Mmmi 
yi^uPH of a,K(^ Ik^ allowed (,o work in any facl.ory (H- inannfacliirin^; 
<;()ncorii more Uian eifrlit Iioiiih a day, n.iid fliai Uieir employmiuit, 
at nielli l)(! al)HoIutoly proliil)it<Ml. If any under foiirl,(!(^n \>r. eiii- 
ployc^d fliey wei'(^ fo liav<» a <!er(/ifi<'a,l.e sliowinfj; aM.<Midance al, 
Hcliool (pul)li<; or prival.iv) for af N^aHl, UinM's iiionl,liH in l,lie pre(r<i(l- 
ing year. 'J'ho poimlty for violalion wan to bo l(wi(Ml on the em- 
ployor. (liv.pi., S«^c.. of F^oard, ISfi, 2'.)) 

In IHIT), tli(i vi.sitor from Windliam Haid: 

" W«i niii fully roiiviiKMMl, from Mui IkihI, iiiloriiuilioii wo (^iin ohiniii, (liiif, 
du^rti lint iniiiiy (tliiidmi in our I.owiih who urc tiiiinlxntMl, aiwl upon whom 
inoiiry in ihiiwii, who iini i;oiiliii<)il in l.lio <;ot,l.oii luiilH, uimI.oimI of riiJoyiiiK Mio 
bonulitu of itiHtruoliun in Uio uchoolhoiiHo. " (Coiiii. RM|)t., lK4r», l()r>) 

Ah early as \K.W, the N'^inlati v(i committ<M; estimated thai, not 
l(5HH than (■»,()()() childron did not att(5nd h<!IiooI. (('onn, Kept., 
1853, 1(H>) In 184(5 the report cairie from Voluntown in a wimilar 
refrain: ". . . an immenHe numb(>r of (children nwi necen- 
Harily oinployod in operating tlu^He millH, who are not privih^K"'*! 
or benefited by the public money for tlu^ Hi^hoolinj;; of childnMi." 
(Clonn. Kept., \MV), IH) In 1851 IVTr. Marnard iirRed the OHtab- 

145 



146 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

lishment of "a regular gradation of schools" to embrace "Pri- 
mary, Secondary and High Schools, with Intermediate Schools or 
Departments between each grade, and Supplementary Schools, 
to meet the wants of a class of pupils not provided for in either of 
the above grades." (Conn. Rept., 1851, 54) He recommended 
for the high school "a, course which should give to every young 
man a thorough English education, preparatory to the pursuits 
of agriculture, commerce, trade, manufactures, and the mechanical 
arts, and if desired for college. " (Ibid., 53) In his conception of 
supplementary schools was included our present-day idea of con- 
tinuation schools, as well as institutions for defectives and depend- 
ents. (Ibid., 50) He further said that "on the apphcation of 
these principles, especially in our cities and large villages, de- 
pends the progress of the common schools." (Ibid., 61) This 
was a comprehensive view for the year 1851, doubtless due to his 
study of other school systems. But however needful such a plan, 
it received Httle hearing at that time. In this same report (Ap- 
pendix E) he published a discussion of evening and industrial 
schools, including a letter from a Rhode Island minister on the 
benefit of evening industrial schools, an extract from the Four- 
teenth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in 
Ireland (1847) on industrial schools. He described the work of 
John Pounds, Pestalozzi and Fellenberg, and of William Watson 
of Aberdeen, Scotland, in their attempts to help in the education 
of industrial workers. The next year, in writing of non-attend- 
ance, he said, "In 96 districts . . . comprising in the aggre- 
gate 3,800 pupils, less than 1,000 were present during the first 
week of school, and more than that number did not join until after 
the close of the third week of the term. . . . 460 left school, 
3 weeks before the term closed. " (Conn. Rept., 1851, 15-16) He 
also returned to his plan of adapting the school to the industrial 
needs of the community. (Ibid., 28-45) 

In 1859 Mr. Camp described what he called "a fair average of 
the towns of the state." The town was engaged in agriculture, 
partly in manufacturing, and had some commercial ventures. 
Of the 720 children enumerated, 617 were enrolled in the winter 
schools, and 325 in summer schools. The average attendance 
for the year was 367. He continued by saying that one cause of 
this was the use of rate-bills which placed a premium on absences. 
(Conn. Rept., 1859, 17-18) The reports for 1866 and 1867 give- 



Influencing Factors 147 

still further evidence that many children were not attending 
school but were engaged in remunerative occupations. The fol- 
lowing are examples: In one village — 841 children of school age, 
18 in private schools, 6 in out of town schools, 139 "or nearly 17 
per cent." out of school and out of work. In another place the 
following conditions obtained. Two hundred and fifty children 
of school age; "not less than 100 children of school age habitually 
absent from school." In New Haven, after making all valid 
deductions, 650 children were out of school for no valid reason, 
and 610 because of employment. (Conn. Rept., 1861, 81-88; 

1867, 83-86) 

In 1868 the secretary undertook a systematic study of the prob- 
lem of non-attendance. He enumerated a long list of causes and 
then said: "Another common cause is the illegal employment of 
children in manufacturing establishments. In Connecticut, and 
in most of the New England and Middle States, they are required, 
by law, to attend school at least 12 weeks out of each year's work 
in a manufactory. That law is openly disregarded. In Connecti- 
cut where the operatives are largely French Canadians, 229 out of 
389 of school age do not attend school. In another district, in- 
quiry has brought to light many individual cases like the follow- 
ing. In one factory were found 2 girls 1 1 years old, and one 12 
years, who had not been in school for two years; one 14 years, not 
in school for 5 years; one 11 years, one 15, and one 17, who had 
not been in school for four years; one 13 years, not in school for 
three years. All these were girls. In the same district were 11 
boys, all of school age, who had been absent from school, on an 
average, over three years." One of the causes of this condition 
was the inability or unwillingness to pay rate-bills. (Conn. Rept., 

1868, 24-25) One phase related to the life of industrial workers 
was the system of evening schools. But these did not begin until 
1867, the first being in New London. The persons attending 
these schools were usually above 14 years of age and already in 
some vocation. Some were recent immigrants. (Conn. Rept., 
1871, 57-60; 179) In 1875, the agent of, the state board em- 
ployed to enforce the child labor laws, reported that among the 
children employed "very few children under 14 years of age were 
found among them; and of the small number employed, nearly 
all had attended school as the law required. " (Conn. Rept., 1875, 
135) In this report, one instance of prosecution is mentioned. 



148 Development of Free Schools in me United States 

The agent gave the impression that most employers among manu- 
facturers were glad to comply with the law; but that small shop- 
keepers, farmers and mechanics evaded it repeatedly. {Ibid.) 

This survey shows the following general conditions: (1) The 
apprenticeship laws adapted to the older domestic system of in- 
dustry; (2) the breakdown of the domestic system and real con- 
trol of apprenticeship; (3) the promise of remuneration from 
child labor coupled with the necessity of paying rate-bills in- 
creased non-attendance; (4) the feeble attempts of the state to 
regulate the problem of child labor; (5) the recommendations of 
Barnard and Camp for adjustments in types of schools and con- 
trol of attendance at school, to meet these new conditions; (6) the 
very late appearance of evening schools of the continuation type 
to meet the needs of workers. Under such conditions new types 
of instruction, different organization of schools, different methods 
of teaching, and free school privileges were very necessary. Some 
saw these needs. 

What did labor itself see as its needs in this matter? Any ex- 
pression of this sort would most likely come from organized labor. 
In March, 1836, a national organization of cordwainers met in 
New York. New Haven had two delegates out of forty-five 
present — Joel B. Foot and Daniel C. Augur. The only action 
taken at the convention bearing on education was relative to ap- 
prenticeship. This forbade members from instructing appren- 
tices except under certain conditions. (Commons and Sumner, 
VI: 311-331) 

In 1867 the National Labor Union held a congress at Chicago. 
Michigan was represented by delegates from Detroit, Grand 
Rapids, and Pontiac — a total of six. Connecticut was repre- 
sented by delegates from Norwich, New Haven, Mountville, 
Danielsville, and Rockville — a total of five. During the session, 
four others were admitted from Michigan. This congress took 
no specific action about education except apprenticeship. (Com- 
mons and Sumner, VI: 169-194) 

The second session of the National Labor Union met in Sep- 
tember, 1868, at New York. Representatives were present from 
several states, including Michigan and Connecticut, and from sev- 
eral "Female Labor Organizations." No action was taken re- 
garding education. (Ibid., IX: 195-227) A similar convention 
was held at Philadelphia, in August, 1869. {Ibid., IX: 228-242) 



Influencing Factors 149 

In no case did Connecticut or Michigan play a conspicuous r61e, 
yet these two states were represented. But these instances are con- 
fined to the decade of 1860-1870, and later, with the exception of 
the meeting of the cordwainers of 1836. It is evident, then, that 
Connecticut shared in some degree in the labor movement of the 
thirties and forties, and in the later movement much more. No 
evidence has been found of the attitude of these men of Connecti- 
cut on free schools; but, in both periods, they were affiliated with 
organizations which had emphatically declared their position on 
this question. 

The attitude of labor organizations in general toward free 
schools has been treated by Carlton {Economic Influences upon 
Educational Progress in the United States, and Education and In- 
dustrial Evolution), and some of the sources concerning this have 
been collected by Commons and Sumner {Documentary History of 
American Industrial Society). These writers show that organized 
labor was generally favorable to free schools supported by public 
funds whenever the issue was met, and that labor unions, not in- 
frequently, on their own initiative demanded free schools. Such 
evidence as has been found establishes only a probability that the 
laboring men of the two states had any vital influence in hasten- 
ing the development of free schools. 

The rate-bill school did not encourage attendance of children of 
laboring men, and it was unable to meet their general educational 
needs, and, on the other hand, there is but slight evidence that the 
parents of such children took action to secure better conditions in 
these two states. 



11 



ATTITUDE OF TAXPAYERS 

To make schools free it was necessary to substitute property 
taxation for rate-bills. But how did those who were called upon 
to pay the increased tax view the proposal? It has been shown 
that the rural communities were slower in adopting free schools 
than urban communities. That this was partly due to fear of in- 
creased taxes, there is no doubt. The reports of school visitors 
give ample testimony to verify this. Then, there were many 
who did not believe in paying taxes to be expended upon other 
people's children. The visitors' reports again verify this. The 
argument of Fralick that money paid in by some counties of Mich- 
igan would be expended in other counties, is somewhat similar. 

One way of judging the attitude of the taxpayers is by the 
growth of optional district taxation in both states. In Connecti- 
cut, people were willing to cease paying taxes just as soon as they 
could get the income from the state fund. Some similar condi- 
tions existed in Michigan. Until about 1860, in Connecticut the 
district tax was, on the average, no larger than the required town 
tax. (Table IV, Appendix) This does not indicate a very great 
willingness of taxpayers before 1860. On the other hand, op- 
tional district taxation in Michigan began to assume very great 
importance by 1848 and increased continuously thereafter, 
(Table III, Appendix) This seems to indicate a greater willing- 
ness to levy taxes for schools in Michigan than in Connecticut. 
Table X (Appendix) gives examples from five different societies 
in Connecticut before 1856 which supported schools with little or 
no district tax. 

The address made by J. P. Gulliver, at the dedication of Nor- 
wich Free Academy, reveals another tj^pe of opposition to taxa- 
tion for schools. Schools supported by public taxes would be 
subject to changes in public sentiment, no definite policy could be 
carried out, and probably taxes for secondary schools would be 
refused. How extensive this belief was is not known. In Michi- 
gan, the Kalamazoo High School case and the case of Wall 
vs. Eastman reveal the opposition of a few taxpayers. (See 
Appendix) 
150 



Influencing Factors 151 

In 1855 Mr. Philbrick reminded the district officers that they 
were empowered to levy taxes and aboUsh rate-bills, if they de- 
sired to do so. Three years later, Mr. Camp stated that the 
number of districts using taxation instead of rate-bills was in- 
creasing, yet he was not ready to recommend that the state 
abolish rate-bills for he felt that local sentiment was not yet favor- 
able enough to taxation. He said that opposition to such taxes 
came from men of wealth with no children, and from men who 
were ignorant as to the needs of schools, and he also reminded the 
district officers that they had the power to abolish rate-bills by 
levying taxes. 

Mr. Northrop stated that in 1852 but three societies, including 
seventeen districts, reported local taxation for schools. The 
action of Voluntown in 1856, previously referred to, is an example 
of evasion of taxation. Mr. Northrop said in 1868 that "The 
wealthier families resist all efforts to lay a tax and patronize pri- 
vate schools." (Conn. Rept., 1868, 35-36) This may have been 
true to a degree, but as early as 1853 Mr. S. W. Collins, of Collins- 
ville, "the chief proprietor of the manufacturing establishment 
which constitutes the principal business of the village, and the 
largest taxpayer," having no children of his own, gave his most 
cordial support to the movement which finally made the schools 
free in that village. (Conn. Rept., 1853, 7) 

In 1842 when Detroit was establishing free schools, a small 
group of taxpayers organized a movement to defeat the 
proposed change. But they were in the minority and did not 
succeed. 

This evidence shows that the attitude of taxpayers was divided, 
that some were opposed because of added expense; others were 
opposed because they desired to patronize private schools and did 
not want to pay taxes for public schools; still others, because 
they did not want to pay taxes which would be expended in an- 
other county (referring to state taxes) ; and finally, a few believed 
that secondary education could not, and should not be supported 
by taxation. 

Very clear also is the evidence that many taxpayers favored 
free schools, and finally, it is evident that the favorable attitude 
was of slow and gradual growth. 



INFLUENCE OF LOCAL UNITS OF SCHOOL 
ADMINISTRATION 

In Connecticut, local units included districts, towns, union dis- 
tricts, and, until 1856, societies. In Michigan, the district and 
the county figure as actual units in rural regions, while the union 
district was in urban localities, and the township largely without 
power of school administration. 

The district in Connecticut averaged a little over three square 
miles in area. The society was larger, and the town usually 
larger than either. In 1856, 938 districts out of about 1,600 av- 
eraged less than forty children of school age. In Michigan, it is 
not possible to determine the average size, but judging from the 
land survey provisions they would probably be somewhat larger 
than in Connecticut. How did such units affect free school de- 
velopment? To secure school support by taxation it was neces- 
sary to have sufficient property to tax. Many districts were too 
small to bear taxes. Again, it was necessary to educate the three 
-district committeemen or directors in order to secure the levy of a 
tax. Sometimes it was necessary to educate the voters as well. 
The range of selection of officials in these districts was so small 
that little chance existed for the choice of efficient persons. If a 
■district did select efficient officers, they might be overruled by the 
voters, if they levied taxes to make schools free. If the voters 
and officers desired to levy taxes to make schools free, the tax 
valuation might be so small that it would be impossible. These 
districts are described in the Connecticut Report for 1861 (12-13) 
as follows: "While property is taxed in our large cities, with one 
exception, and in many districts in addition to the tax required 
by law, a portion of these small districts, though they receive 
from the public funds more than a pro rata share of school money, 
do not contribute a single dollar, voluntarily, either in rate-bills 
or in district taxes, for the support of schools. " By a law of 1856, 
districts having less than twelve pupils could be united with other 
districts, but the law was repealed by 1859. 

The following is an illustration from 1862-1863. It concerned 
the fifth district of Colchester and the first district of Salem. In 
152 



Influencing Factors 153 

1861, the fifth district had ten scholars; the Salem district, six. 
The fifth district received $11.50 from the State Fund and $23.50 
from Town Deposit Fund and town tax. The Salem district re- 
ceived $6.90 from the State Fund and $28.10 from Town Deposit 
Fund and town tax. And yet both districts used the same school- 
house and there was one teacher. Even with this arrangement 
the school had but sixteen children of school age in both districts 
and we do not know what the attendance was. The combination 
was excellent, but in reality there were yet the two districts, 
neither levying a local tax, and neither able alone to maintain a 
school. (Conn. Rept., ^863, 48) The secretary of the board 
(1866) discussed at length the district system: 

"In all, there are over 1,600 of these little republics, each independent in 
some respects of all others, each capable of opposing progress and thwarting by- 
neglect, if not by literal violations, the enactments of the State. On the av- 
erage there are 10 districts to every town, ten separate bodies which must be 
consulted, and enlightened or guided, before any wise measure can be carried 
for their improvement. ... In most of the districts, I presume, new com- 
mittees are chosen annually. " 

He quotes Mann's discussion of the district system and gives 
evidence from his own state as to certain matters; but he failed 
to note the problem in its financial aspect. (Conn. Rept., 1866, 
70-81) 

The superintendent described the situation in Michigan dis- 
tricts, in 1860, as follows: " Much dissatisfaction is created in the 
districts, and bitter strife arises often between the advocates of a 
large tax and those who make it less, which disturb the peace and 
not infrequently destroy the prosperity of the schools. (Supt. 
Rept., 15-18) 

In 1867, the county superintendents added their arguments to 
those of the state officer: "Districts are, as a general thing, too 
small, rendering rate-bills necessary, and these invariably give 
dissatisfaction. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 32) The superintendent of 
Cass County argued as follows: "The small size of many of the 
districts is a great fault. One has less than 500 acres of land, and 
that land poor, and upon it less than $2,000 of personal property^ 
with which 39 children are to be schooled. . . . Such dis- 
tricts must have poor, small houses, hire cheap, inefficient teach- 
ers but a short time, and even then have to bear large rate-bills. " 
(Ibid., 36) In Clinton County the districts had "been divided 



154 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

and sub-divided until they were too small and weak to support a 
good school." {Ibid., 39) In Eaton County school districts 
were "as a general thing too small." Schoolhouses were fre- 
quently located within one mile of another, even though the coun- 
try was very sparsely populated. {Ibid., 43) 

In Kent County "a number of districts could not make their 
schools free" under the provisions of law then in existence. {Ibid., 
64) The superintendent of Macomb County advocated the 
abandonment of the district for the township system. His rea- 
sons for this were: (1) Equal privileges could not be enjoyed 
under the district system; (2) district system was conducive to 
petty quarrels over the location of schoolhouses; (3) no attempt 
at real grading could be made in the district system. {Ibid., 
76-79) The trouble of locating the schoolhouse is quoted again 
in 1868, as well as the fact that some districts were too poor to 
maintain their schools. (Supt. Rept., 57, 110) 

In arguing for the township unit in 1862 the Michigan super- 
intendent said that the district unit made an equitable distribu- 
tion of school support impossible. (Supt. Rept., 6-8) Two years 
later he repeated his arguments. {Ibid., 75-83) 

This evidence shows that the district system could not guar- 
antee a high type of school direction, could not, in many cases, 
furnish sufficient valuation for school taxes, and, lastly, made 
impossible an equitable distribution of school support. It is self- 
evident that such conditions would retard the growth of free 
schools. 

In Connecticut, the town had little influence in this move- 
ment, except through the work of the school visitors. Often 
these men helped to keep ahve and encourage public sentiment 
for free schools. But, as a unit per se, the town had very little 
effect on the movement. The same is true of the Michigan 
township, for it was not an important unit of school administra- 
tion after 1829. 



INFLUENCE OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCES 
Connecticut 

As a direct aid to school support, we know that from 1821 to 
1856 the School Fund was considered, by many, as all that was 
needed to support schools. The record of this income, from 1825 
to 1883, shows that it never produced more than $1.50 per child of 
school age. (Table III, Appendix) Yet, while wages of teachers 
were low, it played a conspicuous part. It was possible to keep 
a district school in session a few months by depending entirely 
upon this money. Table X (Appendix) shows some examples of 
large dependence upon this income. At Oxford, the income from 
the fund was 58 per cent, of total support, and no taxes are re- 
corded. The percentages for the others are : Willimantic, 86 per 
cent. ; Salisbury, 85 per cent. ; Stratford, 47 per cent. ; seventeen 
districts of Thompson, 80 per cent. No taxation is mentioned, 
and tuition is. These facts show the dependence placed upon 
the fund as late as 1848-1855. No incentive was offered for taxa- 
tion. The fund placed a premium upon no taxation, because, 
for years, the income from it was large enough to support legal 
schools without taxation. After 1856 the possibility of total 
school support by this means decreased rapidly. In that year it 
was 37 per cent.; in 1860, 34 per cent.; 1865, 29 per cent.; and 
1868, 13 per cent. (Tables II, III, Appendix) When the state 
attempted to distribute this money upon the "teacher-employed" 
basis (at first thirty dollars, and later fifty) it was so managed 
that it tended to increase the number of small districts. During 
the period in question, this money was never distributed in such 
manner as to stimulate much local taxation for education. Such 
was the record of this fund. Having great possibilities, they 
were practically unused. As long as local taxation was retarded, 
free schools were delayed. This the school fund helped to do. 

The Town Deposit Fund had little bearing on free school de- 
velopment. In towns where it had been wasted, the people were 
required to pay taxes to provide for the six per cent, income pro- 
vided for by law. This helped to accustom communities to levy 
taxes for schools. By this indirect method it was of some in- 

155 



156 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

fluence, or rather the law regulating it was. When used as an 
investment, the income was always used to lessen school taxes. 

The role of rate-bills in Connecticut is not as easily discovered 
as in Michigan. Our first record is for 1846, and that probably 
subject to great error. In 1855 the comparative amounts per 
district from three types of school support were: District and 
society taxes, $24.08; School Fund income, $61.15; rate-bills, 
$32.77, or 27 per cent, of the total. If a woman teacher were 
employed that year, a district would have paid her $16.30, and 
by use of the rate-bills could have maintained school two months 
longer than possible with other support alone. If a man were 
employed, the extension would have been slightly over one month, 
his salary being $25.95. In 1858 the comparative amounts per 
district were: Local taxes, $90.55; School Fund, $88.03; rate- 
bills, $58.63. If a district employed a woman (salary $16.00), 
the school year could be extended 3.7 months; if a man were 
employed (salary $30.00), the extension would be nearly two 
months. (Computed from Tables II-V, Appendix) 

In another way, rate-bills influenced this movement. There 
were difficulties involved in their administration which could not 
be overcome. These difficulties, including the idea of tuition, 
constituted the factors to be eliminated. There is evidence that 
in 1868 men favored free schools because they wanted to get rid 
of the "odious" rate-bill. 

Table IV (Appendix) gives the record of local taxation from 
1855 to 1875. The town tax required by state law and the op- 
tional district tax constituted the support which finally made 
schools free. The School Fund was not keeping pace with in- 
creased needs. Rate-bills were a constant source of difficulty. 
The Town Deposit Fund was of slight importance. But local 
taxation increased to meet the growing demands, and to pay the 
cost of displacing rate-bills to make schools free. From 1861 to 
1869 district taxes exceeded the town tax, — a fair evidence that 
opinion was growing in favor of this plan of school support. 

Michigan 

In Michigan, the five and seven per cent, funds have been 
constituted a perpetual obfigation. The school fund income in- 
cludes the money derived from both, and is raised by state taxa- 
tion. What might have been a real income producing fund 



Influencing Factors 157 

was then changed into a burden. (Swift, Ch. XXX; Knight, 
87-103) 

The Primary School Funds from 1842 to 1869 never produced 
more than $.50 per person of school age. The lower Umit was 
$.28 in 1845, and the upper limit was $.50 occurring in 1858, 1862, 
1863, and 1864. The median was $.45. While these funds varied 
in amount from $15,489 to $165,651 during the years 1842 to 

1869, the actual relative increase was small. For example, in 
1869 they amounted to $165,651.27, which was equivalent to $.47 
per pupil, or only $.02 above the median $.45. These funds had 
two functions prescribed by law. The first was a direct aid to 
school maintenance; the second was a bonus given only to those 
districts which maintained their schools for at least three months 
during the preceding year. This second function was stated in 
both the constitutions of 1837 and 1850. The first function can 
be described directly from known statistics; concerning the sec- 
ond, only vague approximations can be given. (Table V, Appen- 
dix) The comparative amount of direct aid rendered by these 
funds is shown by Tables I, II and V. (Appendix) Comparing 
with total school support, we find that from 1840 to 1850 the fund 
income varied from about one-seventh to one-fifth of total school 
support; from 1851 to 1860, about one-sixth; and from 1861 to 

1870, from one-seventh to one-eighteenth. Comparing with total 
of teachers' salaries, the following facts are noted : Fund income 
was about 53 per cent, in 1850; 30 per cent, in 1855; 23 per cent., 
1860; 19 per cent., 1865; and 14 per cent., 1869. Since this 
money was used to pay salaries, this is the most important com- 
parison. (Tables I, III, Appendix) 

Certain facts for the year 1857 will show the importance of 
this income in all districts which maintained schools but three 
months, i. e., the limit required in order to share in this income. 
In that year seventy-four districts reported the three items con- 
cerned, which are given in the table which follows: 

Teachers' Wages School Fund Income Total Tax 

Totals 1658.50 827.50 4239.31 

Averages 22.36 11.03 57.29 

Percentages of 57.29 ... . 39 19 1 

By this table it is shown that teachers' wages constituted prac- 
tically two-fifths of the expense, and one-half of this was met by 
^ Computed from statistics in Report of State Superintendent, 1857, 578- 



158 Develo'pment of Free Schools in the United States 

the use of School Fund income. More exactly, 48.7 per cent, of 
teachers' wages was met by this income. For 1855, this percent- 
age was 59, and for 1861, 29.3 per cent.' 

In theory, the administration of this fund should have stimu- 
lated local activity to support schools. It is easily conceivable 
that the seventy-four districts noted above would not have main- 
tained schools for three months in 1857, if they had not received a 
bonus of 48.7 per cent, of their teachers' wages for so doing. 
Swift (Permanent Common School Funds, 168) sets this forth as a 
prominent purpose of such funds. It is very probable that this 
money did stimulate local support for schools, yet accurate evi- 
dence of it cannot be found. If it did, it was a strong factor in 
bringing free schools, supported by tax upon property and open 
to all. The extent of influence of such support can be partly indi- 
cated by its use in those districts reporting no rate-bills, and 
hence, presumably, having free schools. The illustration is for 
1857, and computed from data given in the report of the state 
superintendent for that year. (578-61 1) One hundred and fifteen 
districts reported no rate-bills. The teachers' wages amounted 
to $27,187.46, and the amount of the School Fund income to 
$9,960. An average of $235.71 was paid to teachers in each of 
these districts, and an average of $86.60 of this came from the 
School Fund, i. e., 37 per cent, of each district's teachers' wages 
was met by income from the School Fund. The same year, the 
average amount of wages in 3,633 districts using rate-bills was 
$108.97. Each one of these districts paid, on the average, $26.80 
of these wages from the School Fund income, or 2/^.5 per cent. 
Whether this income would stimulate local school support, would 
depend largely upon the methods used in its distribution. In 
1836 the state established the enumeration basis as the method 
of distribution, this being the number of children from five to six- 
teen years of age. From 1837 to 1843 it was five to seventeen; 
from 1843 to 1861, four to eighteen, and from 1861 to end of 
period, five to twenty. As Cubberley (School Funds and Their 
Apportionment) has well shown, this is a very inefficient mode of 
distribution of school money. Swift (Public Permanent Common 
School Funds) enumerates the various purposes of such funds and 
shows that this method fails to efficiently accomplish any of 
them. 

^Report for 1855, used i\s a basis for computation. 



Influencing Factors 159 

By the constitution of 1837, districts not maintaining schools 
three months each year might be deprived of their share in this 
income. The constitution of 1850 made this mandatory. The 
district taxes increased almost continuously from the time we 
have record of them (1840). It is possible that this requirement 
helped to foster this increase in taxation. 

The township tax was so only in name. It was collected by 
the township and distributed in the same manner as the income 
from the Primary School Fund. In not one case — School Fund, 
district tax, or township tax — was the distribution based on need 
per district. 

The district tax constituted the largest factor in school support 
during this period. Once, in 1863, it was slightly exceeded by 
the township tax. It approximated 50 per cent, of the total 
school support. (Table III, Appendix) That it did so, shows 
the strength of local sentiment for schools, and this makes it more 
probable that the income from the Primary School Funds did 
stimulate school support. The amounts raised from this source 
are shown in Table III (Appendix). This means of support con- 
stituted the great financial factor in supporting schools and ulti- 
mately making them free to all. 

The township tax remained a small factor in school support 
until 1859. After that year, this tax and the district tax made up 
the bulk of school support. (Table III, Appendix) 

The state very early provided the rate-bill to make up deficien- 
cies in school support not met by these sources. As the School 
Fund increased, there was a slight increase in the amount appor- 
tioned, but never more than fifty cents per child during 1837- 
1869. Population increased as well as wealth so that the situa- 
tion described above was not materially changed. The rate-bill 
was still needed. The defects of distribution seemed not to have 
been recognized until near the Civil War period. In 1860 the 
state superintendent pointed out the nature of the problem: 
" Our present plan of distribution is eminently bad and unequal. 
The distribution to each district of the amount raised therein 
makes the tax really a district tax. It simply levies an absolute 
and unvarying tax of two mills upon each dollar of taxable prop- 
erty in the district, without regard to the wealth of the people, or 
the size and cost of their school. The result is that many dis- 
tricts raise more money than they know how to use, while others 



160 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

are forced to curtail their school terms, or are burdened with 
heavy rate-bills for tuition." (Supt. Report, 1860, 16-18) 

Again, in 1862, this official demonstrated that enough money 
was collected to make the schools nearly free, but because 
of the mode of distribution, the amount collected by rate-bills 
was over twice as much as it would have been otherwise. In 
1863 he showed that with an equitable distribution, rate-bills 
would have been entirely unnecessary. When the county super- 
intendents began to make their reports, they called attention to 
this matter and urged a better mode of distribution. If the cal- 
culations made by the state superintendent in 1863 were correct, 
it follows that, because of a poor method of distributing school 
money, the state of Michigan was compelled to wait six years 
longer to have schools free from rate-bills. 

The statistical record of rate-bills is given in Table I, and the 
figures below. The existence of the rate-bill was the "ear-mark " 
of schools not free. Yet by this means of support, the state pro- 
longed the school year. This latter effect is seen in the figures 
following: 



Year 


Time Extended by 


Year 


Extension 




Use of Rate-biU 






1855 


1.6 


months 


1863 


.48 months 


1856 


1.7 




1864 


.5 " 


1857 


1.6 




1865 


.8 " 


1858 


1.6 




1866 


.8 " 


1859 


1.4 




1867 


.70 " 


1860 


.9 




1868 


.66 " 


1861 
1862 


.68 
.5 




1869 


not known 



Average extension (1855-1868), .99 month, with an average 
deviation of .41 month. The median extension is .8 month. * 

The part which rate-bills played in district finance is well 
shown by the rate-bill form (see Appendix), and by its use in 
those districts maintaining school but three months during the 
year. The table following shows this relation and the relation 
to income from Primary School Fund. 

1 These facts are computed as follows: 
Total wages (1855), $295,231.29. 
Length of school year, 5.5 month. 

Wages per month ^^^^^^^'^^ equal $53,678.41. 

Total rate-bills (1855) equal $83,932.84. 
83932.84 divided by 53678.41 equals 1.6. 

This is justifiable because practically all rate-bills were used to pay teachers' 
wages. In a like manner, the figures were computed for other years. 



Influencing Factors 



161 



Year No. of Dist. Average School Fund Rate-bill 
Wages 


1855 50 $39.01 $23.40 $14.02 
1857 74 22.36 11.03 13.80 
1861 20 21.15 6.19 11.53 


Average $27.51 $13.51 $13.11 
Percentage of wages 50% 47% ^ 


The use of rate-bills is best 


shown by fourteen districts in 


1857, in which the amounts were 


equal. (Supt. Kept., 578-611) 


County Township Dist. 


Wages Rate-bill Term 


Gratiot Emerson 1 
Houghton Houghton 1 
Houghton Portage 1 
Lapeer North Branch 2 
Mason Pere Marquette 1 
Newaygo Big Prairie 2 
Newaygo Dayton 2 
Tuscola Fair Grove 4 


$32.00 $32.00 4 mo. 
90.00 90.00 3 " 

122.00 122.00 4 " 
71.00 71.00 4.7" 
26.00 26.00 3 " 
45.00 45.00 3 " 
26.00 26.00 3 " 
66.00 66.00 3 " 


14 


Ave. 3.46 mo. 



It is very evident from this table that in these fourteen districts 
the rate-bills paid the teachers' salaries. 

Regarding the influence of development of school support it 
may be summarized as follows: (1) The development of local 
(district) taxation under state laws became the chief means of 
support and finally made the schools free. (2) The develop- 
ment of the township tax was less influential, but helped much at 
certain periods. (3) The use of the income from the Primary 
School Fund gave direct aid to support of schools, and, although 
it cannot be demonstrated by statistics, seems to have stimulated 
local support which ultimately assumed such large significance. 
(4) As these means of support grew, the general tendency of the 
rate-bill was to decline. This is well shown by the percentage of 
teachers' wages paid by rate-bills in Table I. (5) Many dis- 
tricts relied almost entirely upon rate-bills and School Fund in- 
come to support their schools. (6) Some districts evidently 
paid all of the teachers' salaries from rate-bills. District taxa- 
tion displaced this. 

Since rate-bills were used in both states to pay salaries, the 
question arises as to how the changes in salaries influenced this 
movement. Table V (Appendix) shows that teachers' salaries 
in Connecticut began to increase rapidly in 1865. From 1864 

» Computed from reports for years given. 



162 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

to 1869, salaries of men increased $30.00, or 104 per cent., and 
salaries of women, $16.82, or 73 per cent. By reference to Table 
IV (Michigan, Appendix) it is seen that salaries increased very 
much after 1863. By 1868 salaries of men had augmented $19.61, 
or 70 per cent., and of women $9.48, or 76 per cent. This rapid 
increase in salaries caused people to levy more taxes or use more 
rate-bills. It tended to increase rate-bills and to draw public at- 
tention to them. In this way, the changes in salaries helped to 
bring about the abolition of rate-bills in both states. 



ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

FREE SCHOOLS 

Connecticut 

The record of the state offices has been shown, and also develop- 
ments in 1850 to 1870. Barnard for a time was an official ad- 
vocate for free schools. Camp, Philbrick, Oilman, and Northrop 
never changed their belief, although one of them believed that 
the time had not arrived to push the demand for tax-supported 
schools. The continuous series of reports issued by these men, 
the use of the Common School Journal by these officers as a means 
of reaching public opinion, and the lectures and addresses by 
them and their helpers make up a very important factor in creat- 
ing favorable sentiment to free schools. 

The commissioners of the School Fund had little to say about 
free schools, and thus little influence. These men held an office 
which could have been utilized better than it was, if they had suc- 
ceeded in devising and establishing modes of apportionment of 
money which would have stimulated local activity for schools. 

The governor of the state, after 1865, became a member of the 
state board of education. One of these, Governor English, 
worked in the final campaign for free schools. The others were 
relatively unimportant in the whole movement. Legislative 
committees, in one or two cases, made somewhat superficial in- 
vestigations of the public schools which helped to form public 
opinion. The influence of these committees was far less than the 
influence of the school visitors of the towns. So far as the reports 
of these officers of the towns were published they indicated a great 
earnestness for the welfare of the schools. The evidence of their 
activity in the 1860's has been given. In general, these officers 
were favorable to free schools. 

Michigan 

Isaac E. Crary was a delegate to Congress from the Territory 
of Michigan and was also the first representative after it became 
a state. He was a speaker of the Michigan House of Represent- 

163 



164 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

atives, and a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1850. 
He was familiar with Cousin's report and an intimate friend of 
John D. Pierce. In the proceedings of 1850, we get the best view 
of his attitude. " If we are going to have a system of free schools, 
there should not only be a forfeiture of public money, but a 
penalty for neglecting to comply with the law. He was willing 
to leave it to the Legislature as long as the Public Officer was 
kept, whose business it was to attend to the cause of education. 
. . ." "It is, I think, the voice of the convention to have a 
free school system — it is my wish — but we must not impose too 
heavy a burden to accomplish this object." (Shearman, 216, 220, 
239-240, 242) 

The attitude of most of the governors has been described in 
tracing the general movement. Some phases will be recalled here. 
Governor Mason (1836-1839) expressed himself in favor of free 
universal education in three different messages. (Shearman, 
20, 22, 46) Governor Woodbridge (1841) spoke very strongly 
of a better mode of school support. He also referred the legis- 
lature to the state of education in Connecticut, largely on the 
assumption that it was excellent there. His knowledge of the 
situation in Connecticut seems to have been limited, or he would 
not have given this state as an example of excellency in educational 
administration, when rate-bills were as common there as they 
were in Michigan. However, his recommendations were very 
general, and it may be that he was considering other features 
much more than the rate-bill. (Shearman, 59) 

Governor Barry (1842-45) was favorable to the widest dis- 
semination of educational advantages. (Shearman, 90, 114, 124) 
During his administration (1843) a law was enacted amplifying 
and strengthening the use of rate-bills. Governor Ransom 
(1848-1849) felt very content with the state of the common 
schools. "The laws by which our common schools are regulated, 
it is believed, require no change. None perhaps could be de- 
vised which would more effectually secure the great object in 
view, than those now in force." (Shearman, 163, 176) In 1850 
Governor Barry again appears, but believed that "no essential 
change" was needed in the system of common schools. Yet in 
that same year $32,318 was raised by rate-bills which was three- 
fourths the amount distributed from the State Primary Fund. 
(Shearman, 195; Supt. Rept., 1880, 326) It was in this year, 



Influencing Factors 165 

also, that graduated tuition fees or rate-bills were legalized. 
It was also the year of the constitutional convention and the 
prominent free school fight centering there. (Shearman, 212- 
246, 256-259) In the next message of this official (1851) he was 
awake to the question and insisted that the legislature should 
immediately fulfill the provisions of the constitution as to free 
schools. (Shearman, 262) Governor Parsons (1855) urged the 
lawmakers to fulfill this obligation, but they gave no heed to his 
suggestion. Governor Bingham (1857) and Governor Wisner 
(1859) both urged the legislature to take action, but without any 
definite results except more rate-bill legislation and a reenact- 
ment of the two-mill township tax. 

John D. Pierce was the first state superintendent and an ardent 
proponent of free schools. He was largely responsible for the 
form of the educational laws of 1837-1838. At a later time Mr, 
Pierce elaborated more fully his position in the following words : 
"It was my purpose from the beginning to make all our schools 
free in every case, from the lowest to the highest — free from rate- 
bills and tuition bills. I assumed the position that the property 
of the state should be holden for the education of every child in it. 
But the wealth of the state has ever opposed free schools and yet 
no class is more deeply interested in the education of all. There 
is no safety in the midst of debased ignorance. It was urged that 
while our University should be open to all our young men, we 
surely were not called upon to admit others without charges for 
tuition." (Mich. Pioneer Coll., 1 : 37-45) Mr. Pierce believed 
that free and universal education was necessary for the state and 
for the individual. (Hoyt and Ford, Chap. 9) Speaking of the 
individual he has this to say: "By means of the public schools, 
the poor boy of to-day without protection of father or mother, 
may be the man of learning and influence to-morrow and he may 
accumulate and die the possessor of tens of thousands; he may 
«ven reach the highest station in the Republic, and the treasures 
of his mind may be the richest legacy of the present to the coming 
generation." (Ibid., 17) For society education is "to advance 
the interests of the whole people." {Ibid., 98) As a member of 
the Constitutional Convention of 1850, he worked with Crary 
and others to secure the section on free schools. Franklin 
Sawyer, Jr. (1841-1843) insisted very strongly that "the prop- 
erty of the state ought to be held liable for the education of all 

12 



166 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

within its borders." (Shearman, 62) O. C. Comstock (1843- 
1845) seems to have left no expression concerning free schools. 
Ira Mayhew (1845-1849 and 1855-1859) exerted considerable 
influence on the development of schools and school support. 
His book, Means and Ends of Universal Education, helped to form 
opinion on matters of popular education. In 1858 he pubUshed 
the results of an investigation of the Union schools and thus 
helped to advance this type of school. Francis W. Shearman 
(1849-1855) was influential in formation of favorable opinion 
and securing legislation. (Supt. Rept., 1853, 6-7) 

John M. Gregory (1859-1864) in his first report claimed that 
"the public sentiment of the state demands that education should 
be made free to every child." He protested against the system 
of distribution of school taxes and urged that distribution be 
based on need per district. He made a plea that the state as- 
sume the burden of furnishing universal education. (Supt. 
Rept., 1859, 19, 61) Again, in 1862, he urged the adoption of a 
more equitable distribution of school taxes. He also showed by 
use of the amount of school income then available that free 
schools were possible for six months in the year if the money was 
rightly distributed. (Supt. Rept., 1862, 4, 82) His recommenda- 
tions about this were repeated in 1864. (Supt. Rept., 8) In 
1863 he blamed all the evils of the rate-bill system upon the bad 
apportionment of money. (Supt. Rept., 27) 

Mr. Gregory was succeeded by Oramel Hosford, who held this 
office, 1865-1872. In 1868 Mr. Hosford set forth the question of 
free schools at great length in his annual report. This has al- 
ready been described. This was undoubtedly the most impor- 
tant thing which he did with reference to free schools. It had 
considerable influence in bringing the legislation of the following 
year. These officials in the main believed in, and wrote and spoke 
in favor of free schools and better means of support for them. 
Their work in their annual reports, their communications with 
school officials, their opportunity to influence legislation at the 
state capitol and their public addresses made their work a very 
important factor in the actual development of free schools. 

The first reports made by county superintendents appear in 
1867, the office having been established that year. The super- 
intendent of Cass County called attention to use of rate-bills and 
their influence on breaking up attendance. He further pointed 



Influencing Factors 167 

out the difficulties inherent in the mode of distribution of school 
money then in use. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 37) The superintendent 
from Eaton County pointed out that the same difficulties existed 
in that county. {Ibid., 43) The superintendent of Kent County 
claimed that it was impossible, under existing laws, for several 
districts in that county to make their schools free. (Ihid., 64) 
John D. Pierce, who was in 1867 the county superintendent of 
Washtenaw County, said, ''In my first report, January 1837, I 
affirmed the principle that the property of the state should be 
holden for the education of every child in it. Its good order and 
safety require it." (Supt. Rept., 1867, 116) Mr. Pierce still had 
the rate-bill to contend with; in this year it amounted to 
$3,050.31 for his county. Inasmuch as the average monthly salary 
of a teacher in that county was $16.83, and the average amount 
of money per teacher paid for instructor in rate-bills was $8.54, 
about one-half month's schooling was paid for by rate-bills. In 
other words, the schools were free 6.7 months and rate-bill schools 
.5 month. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 251-258) Thus out of about 
forty county superintendents, these four spoke specifically about 
the matters involved in the development of free schools while all 
the others complained about the bad conditions of schools. 
During that year but five counties out of all reporting included 
no rate-bills in their figures. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 254) The next 
year there were forty-seven county superintendents. The 
superintendent of Allegan County reported that he knew of no 
use of rate-bills in the county. (Supt. Rept., 44) Superintendent 
H. A. Ford of Berrien County issued a periodical or bulletin 
three times during the year, known as the Berrien School Journal, 
and sent it free to all school officers and teachers. In one num- 
ber a "letter to the annual meetings" appeared, urging the aboli- 
tion of the rate-bill and other reforms. He also furnished the 
county press material similar to this. He was able to report that 
the "relic of barbarism yclept the rate-bill, was wiped out in 
many districts and provision was made for better pay for teach- 
ers." (Supt. Rept., 1868, 51) In 1867 the amount raised by rate- 
bills in this county was $2,787.58. In 1868 with an increase in 
expenditure, it was $2,570.77. From Branch County, the super- 
intendent reported that they were "getting rid of the rate-bill 
as fast as possible." (Ibid., 54) In 1867 the total for Branch 
County was $3,177.64; a year later it was $2,828.37. 



168 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

The superintendent of Cass County claimed that his teachers 
^ere embarrassed by rate-bill panics. "In those terror-stricken 
schools — with a teacher worthy of his hire — the cry of rate-bill 
by some skinflint would cause pupils to leave the schoolhouse as 
if it were on fire." {Ibid., 58) The superintendent of Clinton 
County reported better support by tax and said it prophesied 
**the early annihilation of the detestable rate-bills. He also 
urged legislative action to make all schools free. {Ibid., 63) 
From Hillsdale County came the report that one of the serious 
hindrances to success in the schools was the disgraceful rate-bill. 
*' Nearly every director in this county signed a petition to be pre- 
sented to the next legislature for the abolition of the rate-bill 
system." {Ibid., 73, 74) During the year the total amount of 
rate-bills had slightly increased. The superintendent of Ionia 
County went to every director in his county calling his attention 
to problems to be attended to and one of these was the rate-bill. 
He also reported better support of schools and probability of 
large decrease in use of rate-bill. {Ibid., 83-84) Superintendent 
Bicknell of Kent County urged legislative action to abolish the 
rate-bill so that Michigan could proclaim ''the schools forever 
free." {Ibid., 98) The man in Macomb County emphasized the 
fact that seven out of eight union schools in the county were 
free. He also blamed the rate-bill for poor attendance. {Ibid., 
103, 105) The testimony from Montcalm County was that 
when schools were free the attendance was good. The super- 
intendent of Muskegon County said "the greatest drawback to 
our schools is that abominable rate-bill. I hope and pray that 
the next legislature will wrap it in its winding sheet and give it 
decent burial in a grave so deep that it will never be resurrected." 
(Ibid., 117) 

The number of persons outspoken in 1867 among county 
superintendents was, as is shown, far greater than in 1866. 
This is partly explained by the work of the State Association of 
County Superintendents which discussed the question of rate- 
bills and appointed a special committee to consider the matter. 
Several of the county superintendents published bulletins on 
school matters, maintained by advertising, and circulated them 
free to school officials and teachers. Many made use of the 
local papers to form sentiment. County superintendents were 
very influential in securing the free school law of 1869. 



POLITICAL THEORY AND FREE SCHOOLS 

The growth of free schools was one of the lines of development 
of our American society in harmony with the political theory of 
popular government. Popular government rests upon general 
suffrage of some sort. The worth of popular suffrage depends 
upon the degree of intelligence used in its exercise. This makes 
necessary some form of education which shall reach to and edu- 
cate all voters. This argument appeared in many documents 
during the period of 1800-1870, One of the reasons back of the 
tuition exemptions in the various rate-bill laws was this belief. 
Still another, and more important, was the doctrine of equal op- 
portunities for all. This is shown in the fuel exemption law of 
1824, in section 16 of the rate-bill law of 1839, and in the exemption 
clauses of the rate-bill laws of 1856, 1860, 1862, 1863, and 1864. 
This is most pertinently stated by the visitor of Plainfield so- 
ciety, 1845. Even Mr. Barnard, when advocating the retention 
of tuition, would have it so low that all could use the schools. 
Porter's Prize Essay assumes this doctrine to a very large degree. 
Practically every one of the important state officials made use of 
the argument. An example is the statement of Governor Minor. 
The first argument quoted from Mr. Northrop is of this type. 
This doctrine, and the belief that popular education would eradi- 
cate distinctions, were used by the state board of education, 
1866. The resolutions of the convention in Fairfield County 
(1856) assume this doctrine, but give it a more general applica- 
tion. The first statement of the platform adopted by the State 
Teachers' Association (1868) is one form of this argument. 
(See Appendix) The same argument is included in the petition 
of the Hartford Ministerial Association. (See Appendix) The 
article by E. F. S., on "How Shall our Schools be Supported," 
begins with this theory. (See Appendix) In these discussions, 
the theory received various formulations, and some extensions. 
One often used was that taxation for schools was the insurance of 
the rich that their property would be safe from criminals. While 
arguments were used that free schools would help to eliminate 
caste-like social distinctions, very few expressions exist to show 

169 



170 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

the existence of such conditions. The following from the Common 
School Journal, exhibits a very intense attitude by the writer : 

"Another cause is the too prevalent feeling among the 'better classes' that 
their children will be contaminated if sent to the public schools with 'every- 
body's children.' In certain monarchial countries the heir apparent to the 
throne can sit upon the same form with the son of a tradesman; but in repub- 
lican America a portion of the children must be educated in a 'caste,' the 
pass-word of which is five dollars (more or less) per term of eleven weeks! 
While I do honor the motive of the parent who sends his child to a select school 
because it affords better advantages, I cannot but despise his bogus aristo- 
cratic feeling that looks down upon the public school because it is — free!" 
(Journal, 1863, 131) 

As one considers schools as free and relates this to the emanci- 
pation of slaves by the Civil War, the question arises as to the 
influence of the political principles involved. In Connecticut 
this is very evident in the law extending free school privileges to 
all persons regardless of race or color. 

In both states the establishment of a state officer to have some 
little control or direction over education is an example of centrali- 
zation of power. In Connecticut this was largely the result of 
the establishment of a similar office in Massachusetts. In 
Michigan it was actuated directly by the Prussian system. 
John D. Pierce describes how he and Isaac E. Crary planned the 
scheme about 1832: 

" Crary, a graduate of an Eastern College, and a warm friend of education, 
was for a year or two an inmate of my house. The conditions and prospects 
of our new State were often the subject of discussion, and especially of schools 
of various grades, from the highest to the lowest. About this time. Cousin's 
report on the Prussian system, made to the French minister of Public Instruc- 
tion, came into my hands, and was read with much interest. Sitting one 
pleasant afternoon upon a log . . . General Crary and myself discussed, 
for a long time, the fundamental principles which were deemed important for 
the convention to adopt, in laying the foundation of a new State. The subject 
of education was a theme of special interest. It was agreed, if possible, that 
it should make a distinct branch of the government, and that the constitution 
ought to provide for an officer who should have this whole matter in charge, 
and thus keep the importance perpetually before the pubUc mind." (Putnam, 
21-22) 

Mr. Crary was a member of the convention in 1835 and helped 
much in drafting the provisions regarding education. Section I 
of the article on education provided for the choice of an official 
to be known as the superintendent of public instruction. This 



Influencing Factors 171 

office representing, as it did to some degree, central authority 
had considerable influence on the development of free schools. 
But those who favored free schools said little, if anything, about 
such an office and its functions. It would have been unwise and 
impolitic to describe it in such terms. The theory of centraliza- 
tion was not loudly proclaimed, but the office was established and 
did good work in a period when the similar office in some other 
states amounted to very little. The control of the schools by 
state legislation is also centralized control to some degree. The 
free school law of 1869 is a good example. Such seems to have 
been the workings of this group of principles. 

If we examine closely the discussions of individuals related to 
the development of free schools in Michigan, we shall find con- 
tinuous use made of arguments based upon the theory of local 
self-government, and especially upon the claim of democracy 
that all should have equality of opportunity. Those who would 
favor district control objected to state compulsion in matters of 
education because they claimed the right, exercised in town meet- 
ing, to do this themselves. The objections made at various times 
to the levying of a tax, the entire proceeds of which do not remain 
in the community where they were collected, was ultimately 
based on the idea of local control of such funds. Some instances 
will be given of the actual use of democratic theories in the move- 
ment for free schools. Governor Mason, the first executive of 
the state, used it in his message when discussing the needs of edu- 
cation. "Here the rights of all are equal and the people them- 
selves are the primary source of power." (Shearman, 20) In his 
third message (1838) he used these words, ''Every free govern- 
ment is called on by a principle of self-preservation to afford 
every facility for the education of the people. The liberty of a 
people cannot be forced beyond its intelligence." (Shearman, 32) 
In the last message of this same governor (1839) his expression 
was even more pointed: "In a government like ours, which 
emanates from the people, and where the entire administration 
of its affairs is submitted to their supervision and control, no 
other subject can equal in importance that of Public Instruction." 
{Ibid., 47) 

In 1841, Governor Woodbridge touched a similar point: "If 
any political axiom be better established than others, it is this, 
that no republic can long exist, unless intelligence and virtue 



172 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

predominate among, and characterize the great body of its 
people," which, of course, is followed by arguments to better the 
schools. (Ibid., 59) A year later. Governor Barry stated the 
argument in this wise: "The universal education of all classes 
of our citizens is so necessary, and its propriety so generally con- 
ceded, that I need hardly urge upon you its importance. . . . 
The moral and political condition of a people depends in the main, 
upon the degree of knowledge and amount of useful information 
diffused abroad among us. . . . The democracy of a learn- 
ing ... is, then, essential to the permanence of a republi- 
can government, and we can transmit to the rising generation the 
happy political freedom which we enjoy, only by granting them 
the benefits of education." {Ibid., 69) 

A year later he tersely argued that "Universal education is the 
only sure basis on whi(^h republican institutions can permanently 
exist." {Ibid., 91) Tlu^ same type of argument was used by 
Governors Felch (1846) and Ransom (1848). {Ibid., 131, 153) 

The opinions of Governor Bingham (1857) and Wisncr (1859) 
may be stated as follows: Ours is a popular government. Its 
success depends on the intelligence of the voting masses. 
Hence make education universal, make its opportunities equal 
for all, as a means of perpetuating the state. 

Having viewed the political opinion as represented by the 
governors, next let us note those promulgated by superintendents 
of public instruction. John D. Pierce (1837) wrote that, "It is 
by erecting a barrier between the rich and poor, which can only 
be done by allowing a monopoly to the rich — a monopoly of 
learning as well as of wealth — that such an aristocracy can be 
established. But the ojx^-ation of a Free School System has a 
powerful tendency to prevent the erection of this barrier." 
{Ibid., 24) His successor spoke in equally strong terms: "Ed- 
ucation is a common right — the exclusive property of no man or 
set of men. The great fountain which supplies one portion of 
society should be accessible to all. . . ." {Ibid., 79) In 1857 
Mr. Mayhew argued that, "Union Schools are adapted to the 
genius of our government, while select schools and academies are 
aristocratic in their character and tendency." (Supt. Kept., 1857, 
59) These three examples are sufficient. The state superin- 
tendent argued for free schools and equality of opportunity, a 



Influencing Factors 173 

political principle of democracy, first for the value to the people 
themselves, and second for its influence on the state. 

A review of the arguments made in the constitutional conven- 
tion of 1850 and in 1867 show the same general types of political 
principles to have been used. Just how much influence this kind 
of argument had no one can say. At times it seemed a mere 
lifeless political phrase of the time, and at others it seemed to be a 
vital force affecting men's attitude and activity toward the ques- 
tion of free schools. From the evidence given, it is here held that 
it was one of the factors useful in finally securing free schools. 



FINANCIAL PANICS AND FREE SCHOOLS 

The panic of 1837 stopped the distribution of the surplus reve- 
nue. It probably did not lessen taxation for schools much for 
this was used very little at that time in Connecticut as a means of 
school support. Not having records of tuition for that period, 
it is impossible to do more than hazard the statement that it 
would be more difficult to collect tuition. The schools were 
then largely supported by the School Fund and the dividend 
from this during the years 1836-1839 regularly increased. This 
panic seems to have had small influence upon school support. 
The flurry of 1856-1857 caused some discussion in the General 
Assembly. In the same year a well-defined movement in the 
State Teachers' Association for free schools resulted in some legis- 
lation, but not in the abohtion of rate-bills. There may have 
been some relation between this failure and the panic, but the 
evidence does not reveal it. 

The attention of the legislators in Michigan in 1837-1839, was 
much given to matters that would tend to save the state from in- 
debtedness and not increase expenditure. Much activity con- 
cerned the banking situation, yet it was in 1837 that the school 
system had its beginning. These two sets of facts do not con- 
tradict each other. The school system was started, and then 
came the effects of the panic. As a result no prominent legisla- 
tion was immediately enacted that would mean increased ex- 
penditure. 



174 



THE CIVIL WAR AND FREE SCHOOLS 

In both states, women came into the teaching profession in 
large numbers. This was partly due to the fact that men were 
in the army. In 1861-1862 in Connecticut the men employed 
in the winter numbered 983, and the women, 927. The next 
year, the figures were 818 and 1,236. And in 1864-1865, the 
number of men had decreased to 757, and the number of women 
increased to 1,338. The change for summer terms was similar. 
The percentage of increase for women was 30.5. The corre- 
sponding percentages for Michigan from 1862 to 1865 were 44 
(decrease of men), and 25 (increase of women). ^ 

From data in Table V (Appendix, Connecticut) it is shown that 
there was a tendency for salaries to decHne during the first years 
of the war. Table IV (Appendix, Michigan) shows an opposite 
tendency. But both show that women could be employed much 
cheaper than men. Connecticut would have paid about $6,780 
to the 226 men had they been teaching. Instead, about $6,576 
was paid to 411 women. Similarly, Michigan would have paid 
about S35,836 to the 1,054 men that left the profession, but in- 
stead, 1,508 women were employed for about $22,620, a clear 
saving of about $13,000. (Computed from tables in Appendix) 
Thus the first change to be noted is largely economic. In both 
states, despite the actual increase in total school support, there 
was a marked tendency to practice economy. Further, the major 
point of view, in public discussion and in legislation, was that of 
the war. There is no doubt that the Civil War was one great 
factor in delaying the realization of free schools in both Connecti- 
cut and Michigan. 

^ Computed from data given in Smith, p. 35. 



175 



PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND FREE SCHOOLS 

In Connecticut, by 1850 some evidence is found of a sentiment 
that private schools were not for the best interests of all con- 
cerned. 

That year the superintendent said : 

" . . . I have felt it to be my duty to the cause of public school improve- 
ment, to call public attention to the disastrous influence which our numerous^ 
private schools, from the dame school to the academy, are now exerting, not 
only on the common school, but in the social relations of life, especially in our 
cities and large villages. ... I refer to that more numerous class which 
owe their origin to the real or supposed deficiencies of the district schools, and 
which would disappear immediately whenever the common schools of a society 
or district were thoroughly organized and liberally supported throughout the 
year. The extent to which this class of private schools are patronized by the- 
wealthy and educated famiUes of the state, is at once the evidence of the low 
condition of the public schools and the most formidable hindrance to their 
rapid and permanent improvement. It draws off the means and the parental 
and public interest which are requisite to make good public schools, and con- 
verts them, in some places, avowedly, into schools for the poor — as though in a 
state which justly boasts of equal privileges, there was one kind of education, 
or one class of schools for the rich and another for the poor. It classifies 
society at the root by assorting children according to wealth, education or out- 
ward circumstances of their parents, into different schools; and it educates 
children of the same neighborhood differently and imequally. ... It is 
my firm conviction . . . that the schools . . . can be made so good 
. . . that wealth cannot purchase better advantages in private schools^ 
and at the same time be so cheap as to be within reach of the poorest child. 
. . . I have no expectation of seeing this better sort of things realized, until 
the support of the common schools is made to rest in part on the property of 
the whole community, and until the causes which now make private schools 
to some extent necessary, are removed." (Conn. Rept., 1850, 33-35) 

The next year Mr. Barnard said that "Many children who 
should and would, under some circumstances, be sent to the pub- 
lic schools, attend exclusively private schools of different grades." 
(Conn. Rept., 1851, 13-14) 

The same year Mr. Thomas K. Beecher, lecturer for Litch- 
field County, stated the case in the following words: 

"The academy system which has caused and fostered a spirit of exclusive- 
ness among certain classes, seems to have reached the weakness of old age, 
while, as yet the common school has not come to fill its place. There can be 
176 



Influencing Factors 177 

found nowhere such active enemies of popular education, as that Board of 
Trustees, who have grown old with an old academy building on their hands. 
The people cannot move, for here's a building all running to waste and ruin; 
the trustees cannot, for pecuniary interests have been entrusted to them; and 
-so it comes to pass, that a poor, puny, starveUng academy, and a large, un- 
organized and ungoverned public school are found side by side, each re-acting 
badly on the other. The remedy is — Union for the sake of education. . . . 
In most parts of this state academies and free schools cannot live long side by 
side." (Conn. Rept., 1851, 59) 

The lecturer for Tolland County said : 

"... at the present time, private institutions of education of every 
kind are nourished into rank and overgrown luxuriance, by the low condition 
of the common schools." {Ibid., 22) 

The difference in expenditure for the two types of schools are 
set forth for Thompson society, in 1851, as follows : 

"In the center district, $111 have been paid for private tuition, and thirteen 
children between the ages of 4 and 16 have received the benefit of it. 

"By consulting the expense table and this statement, it will be seen that 
&U the money raised in town for support of our common schools, in which 
between 1,300 and 1,400 have received all the instruction they have had, is not 
equal to the amount paid for the tuition of 13 children who have attended the 
select schools." (Conn. Rept., 1851, 102) 

In 1855, Superintendent Philbrick pointed out that most sum- 
mer schools were private or subscription schools. (Conn. Rept., 

1855, 26) The visitor's report from Norwich for 1855 sets 
forth the comparative costs of the two kinds of schools. Six 
children attended private schools, paying an average tuition of 
about $23 per year. This was more than twice the cost per 
scholar for the "public schools, including the current expenses 
and interest on capital invested in schoolhouses." It was almost 
half the amount for public schools containing 710 pupils. If 
common schools were bettered, this high tuition might be 
saved (?) If all public schools were abandoned, at this rate, the 
cost per year for tuition alone would be $20,003. (Conn. Rept., 

1856, 64-65) Four years later (1860), 262 private schools 
were reported to the superintendent, having an enrollment 
of 7,187 pupils who paid $71,341 in tuition. But ten towns 
made no reports and they included territory having "many 
costly private schools supported four terms a year." "It is 
estimated that 8,000 children are in private schools, for some 
portion of the year, and that the tuition is about $100,000." 
(Conn. Rept., 1861, 20) The total resources of the public 



178 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

schools that year amounted to .1390,201.00. (Appendix, Table II) 
The visitor reporting for the town of Thompson, in 1856, said: 

"The idea of a select school for those who can afford it is, when rightly 
viewed, repugnant to the spirit of our free institutions, and is only excusable 
where the i)e()i)le refuse to raise our conunon schools to the proper standard." 
"Schools should he t^ood enough for the rich and cheap enough for the poor." 
(Conn. Kept., ISfj?, 5;}) 

At New Haven, before the establishment of free schools, 
" private schools absorbed the interest and patronage of those who 
had the disposition and ability to provide a good education for 
their children, and the public schools were permitted to exist as 
a forlorn refuge for the children of the poor." (Conn, Kept., 
1855) By consolidation, small districts ceased and the society 
had full control. "The school consisted of children from all 
classes in social position. Parents who had before looked solely 
to private schools for the education of their children" patronized 
this school. It had been "mad(! good enough for the best and 
free to all." "l<]very child between the ages of four and sixteen 
years, had a right to an immediate and free admission to one 
of the public schools." In 1854 the chairman of the school com- 
mittee of Collinsville said select schools were usually started 
there in the winter by some adventurer, and were of questionable 
value, but helped to weaken the public school. (Conn. Kept., 
1855, 6-14) In 1863, the superintendent said: 

"There have been several instances the past year where pri- 
vate schools have been established by young ladies who have 
been rejected upon an examination for a public school, or who 
had failed in keeping a common school, and yet through the in- 
tercession of friends, or appeals to the benevolences of others, 
have secured a private school, which has been successful only 
in withdrawing interest and support from the public schools." 
(Conn. Rept., 1863, 23) The following table shows the private 
school statistics of 1 8(JS : 



County 


No. of Schools 


No. of Pupils 


Hartford 


35 


1,880 


New Haven 


92 


3,183 


New lioudon 


M 


1,017 


KairCu'ld 


»)() 


2,458 


Windham 


10 


:«8 


Litchlicld 


r)() 


1,101 


Middlesex 


24 


506 


Tolland 


15 


390 



(Conn. Rept., 1808, 138) 350 10,923 



1870 


9,583 


1871 


9,304 


1872 


8,754 


1873 


9,029 


1874 


8,529 


1875 


8,422 


1876 


9,145 


1877 


9,816 


1878 


10,180 


1879 


11,190 


Increase 


1,526 


Per cent, increase 


15.9 



Influencing Factors 179 

The statistics of pupils in public and private schools for the 
decade 1869-1879, were as follows: 

Year Private Public 

114,896 

119,944 

122,342 

123,834 

123,386 

127,720 

128,634 

128,922 

129,388 

130,937 

16,041 

14.0 

(Conn. Kept., 1879, 22) 

These tables show for the first few years after the enactment of 
the free school law, a tendency to decline in private schools, 
while the increase in public schools was practically continuous 
throughout the period. Yet the greater percentage gain was in 
the private schools. If we compare the private attendance in 
1868 (see above) the decline is still more marked. The sup- 
posed cheapness of public schools would partly account for this 
decline. This argument was frequently used. The best expres- 
sion of this appeared in an article entitled, "Do Our Public 
Schools Pay?" which is here quoted: 

"This question is often asked of late, especially by that numerous and pro- 
verbially i)atient class, taxpayers. ... It will be our puriMJse to show 
that even in an economical point of view, our i)ublic schools do pay. . . . 
The lowest rate in resijcctable private schools is $5.00 per term of eleven weeks. 
Twenty dollars ($20.00) per annum then, is the lowest figure in the private 
school system. In many of the best private schools, the rates of tuition are 
$40.00 and .$50.00 per annum. Below is a table of the cost per pupil, in 
twenty cities and towns in various parts of the United States. It is compiled 
from the official reports of the school officers in those places. 

Boston $15.75 Indianapolis $ 9.91 

Roxbury 15 .05 Cincinnati 14 . 16 

Danvers 11 .83 Cleveland 10.45 

Springfield 9.23 Zaiiesville 13.64 

New York 12 ..52 Xenia 11 .61 

Bangor 9.76 New Britain 8.10 

Philadelphia 15 .83 New Haven 14.69 

Baltimore 21 .59 Hartford 14 .05 

St. Louis 12 .75 Waterbury 5 .81 

Chicago 14.00 

"Average rate in twenty cities and towns, $13.01. It will be seen, therefore, 
that the difference l)etween the highest rate of private and public tuition 
($50.00-$21..59) is $28.41. Comparing the lowest rates of each, we have 



180 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

($20.00-$5.81) equals $14.19. The difference between the average rate of the 
twenty places mentioned, and the lowest of private tuition is ($20.00-$13.01) or 
$6.99 in favor of the pubUc system. It may therefore be said, without fear of 
negation, that even in a financial point of view, oxjk pubuc schools pay." 
(Conn. Common School Journal, 1862, 311-313) 

There is an error in this statement. There are but nineteen 
towns included. This would somewhat change the values. The 
average then becomes $12.51, instead of $13.01. The first and 
second differences remain the same, because the average is not 
considered, and $7.49 should replace $6.99. It is known that 
private schools existed from very early times in Michigan. 
Their purposes were varied. Some were commercial ventures of 
certain teachers; others were maintained by rehgious sects to 
further their own interests. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 72) Some were 
organized to prepare teachers for examinations. (Supt. Rept., 
1867, 46) Many of them seem to have been of the academy 
type and were incorporated by special acts of the legislature. 
(Shearman, 503-544) No statistics were reported concerning 
these by the state superintendent until 1863. Table VI (Ap- 
pendix, Michigan) gives the attendance for both public and priv- 
ate schools. The growth of private school attendance was 
continuous from 1863 to 1868. From 1869 to 1874, the general 
tendency was a decline. In public school attendance, the in- 
crease was practically continuous. 

The private schools of Michigan were not criticised by school 
officials Uke those of Connecticut, and evidence is wanting to 
show other relationships to free schools. 

In general, private schools were a hindrance to free school 
development, as the evidence given shows. The opponents of 
private schools declared that such schools were often un-demo- 
cratic, anti-republican, un-American, conservers of caste in an 
otherwise democratic society, opponents of public schools, 
agencies which weakened public school attendance, enrollment, 
and support, and that such schools often grew up because of poor 
public schools and then continued to exist for the same excuse. 
That private schools decreased attendance of public schools is 
evident from the fact that, in both states, private school at- 
tendance tended to decrease after the enactment of free school 
laws. The antagonism against private schools seems to have 
been greater in Connecticut. 



EDUCATION AS CHARITY 

Mr. Barnard stated in 1850 that the system of private schools, 
by withdrawing attendance from the pubhc schools, left the pub- 
lic schools for the poor. (See Private Schools) This view was 
stated by many others. From this fact, and the fact that in- 
digent pupils were exempted from tuition in public schools, 
arose the phrase "pauper school." That meant that free edu- 
cation was charity. How strong was such a feeling, and how 
did it influence the coming of free public schools? If we ex- 
amine the early apprentice legislation of the two states, we find 
that in one (Michigan), the management of this was placed in 
hands of the justices of the peace as overseers of the poor, and that 
it was intended primarily for the children of the indigent. This 
was not the case in Connecticut. All who were not educated in 
some other manner, were to be apprenticed, regardless of eco- 
nomic status. As we review the rate-bill legislation of both 
states, we find that the exemptions from tuition charges are 
based on indigence of the recipient, i. e., it was a matter of char- 
ity. How much self-respecting persons felt the implications of 
such exemptions is difl&cult to tell. Northrop mentioned (1868) 
a case of a washerwoman who scorned to send her children to 
such a school. (Conn. Kept., 1868, 135-138) Mr. Philbrick 
(1855) mentioned the case of a boy idling his time away in the 
streets because his father was too poor to pay the rate-bill, the 
implication being that the father was too proud to ask for ex- 
emptions and be classed as indigent. (See Appendix) Northrop 
related an example of a widow who was burdened unduly by the 
tuition charges and who would not ask exemptions. His best 
example was that of a carpenter who was reported to have said, 
" So far, I have always supported my family, and so long as I can 
work, I won't beg for schooling." (See Appendix) It may have 
been that such examples were plentiful, but facts do not reveal 
them. If free school privileges were a mark of charity, we should 
expect the majority to be opposed to such schools. But we find 
instead that panics were created when it was found that the rate- 
bill would be increased. People did not want to pay tuition. 
13 181 



182 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

In both states such panics were mentioned. It seems probable 
that when the issue of free schools was raised, it may have aroused 
a somewhat latent feeling that free education was charity. 
Several evidences about 1868 show that many people were con- 
sidering making pubUc schools charity or pauper schools. The 
first is a statement of Secretary Northrop: 

"Much has been said in Connecticut during the last year in favor of main- 
taining pubhc schools exclusively for the poor." (Conn. Rept., 1868, 135-138) 

One of the members of the State Board of Education stated in 
a pubhc address at Bridgeport that some were saying, "The 
State has no right to educate any but paupers." (Ibid., 137) 
In the ''Ten Planks in the Common School Platform of Con- 
necticut," drafted by the State Teachers' Association, the third 
was, "No pauper schools, but schools for all." (Ihid., 121) 
The visitor of Stonington wrote : 

"The invidious distinction now attempted to be made, . . . that the 
common school is only for the poor who are unable to secure knowledge else- 
where, ... is slanderous to those principles upon which the whole sys- 
tem of common schools is founded, and should be indignantly repudiated." 
{IMd., Appendix CIII-CIV) 

The two visitors of Windham said : 

"There is, however, we regret to say, another consideration connecting itself 
with the discussion about the Normal School in the State, which at present is 
vehemently urged against the school. That is nothing less than an avowed 
purpose, in some quarters, to oppose the established New England idea that the 
common schools should be good enough for all classes of children, and to make 
them good enough only for the children of the poor; in other words, to make 
pauper schools. It is amazing that in Connecticut, in this year 1867, intelli- 
gent and educated men can be found who urge such changes." (Ibid., CXVII) 

These evidences show the existence of such a belief in Connecti- 
cut. In examining the history of Michigan, one finds practically 
no reference made to such a feeling or behef . 

How did this conception influence free schools? In one way, 
not at all. No evidence is found to show that when schools were 
made free, people felt themselves paupers. In another way this 
conception affected the development of free schools. As long 
as public schools were thus viewed, there would be two groups of 
society, one that could patronize private schools, and one that 
must accept the charity of the public school. This condition 



Influencing Factors 183 

conflicted with popular political principles of that day, as well as 
tending to make schools very much neglected. This was one of 
the things that free schools was to ehminate. Again, the pub- 
licity given to such a behef in the writings of Northrop helped to 
form sentiment against it. The campaign for free schools meant 
a more thorough formation of opinion against this conception. 
(See Appendix) 



INFLUENCE OF BELIEF IN THE MORAL VALUE OF 
GENERAL EDUCATION 

The code of 1650 exhibits the Puritan belief in the reHgious 
and moral values of education for all. The later changes in this 
law still retain the fundamental idea of education for the moral 
value. Noah Porter's essay strikingly sets forth this view. 
Governor Minor referred to the moral value of education in 
1855. Secretary Northrop's arguments for free schools give 
much attention to this belief. The Ordinance of 1787 (Art. 
Ill, sec. 3) incorporates this belief into law. In the Constitu- 
tional Convention of 1850 in Michigan, this view was advocated 
very well by Moore. In the Michigan sectarian controversy, the 
statement of Levi Bishop is a defense of the secular school be- 
cause of its moral value. John D. Pierce held to this view and 
declared it at various times. The citation from the Norwalk 
Gazette, the statement of a member of the Connecticut State 
Board of Education, the memorial of the Hartford Ministerial 
Association, and the platform of the State Teachers' Associa- 
tion (Conn.) are evidences that this belief was firmly held by the 
advocates of free schools. This belief and its relation to free 
schools may be reduced to the following statements: (1) Edu- 
cation produces moral results; (2) it is necessary that all have 
the advantage of moral training thus afforded ; (3) to make these 
values universal, schools must be free. 



184 



SUMMARY 

CONNECTICUT 

The more remote origins of our free schools were European 
educational practices. The actual beginnings were in the colo- 
nies. In Connecticut, there existed a widespread and firm belief 
in the necessity of general and vocational education. All men 
should be able to read and write, should be trained in morals and 
religion, and fitted for some vocation. For many the vocational 
training was apprenticeship ; for a few the vocational training was 
obtained in the college or by private study. Two phases of free 
schooling developed. First, children of the poor unable to pay 
tuition for instruction in reading and writing, were exempted 
from such charges, and the expense borne by the community. 
The poor were schooled at public expense, but it was considered 
charity. Second, some schools seem to have been free to all who 
attended them. Apprenticeship, in some cases, may have been 
supported by the public. 

Before the Revolution, decentralization in school control had 
gained much headway. Immediately after the war it continued, 
and increased until the state government had surrendered to the 
small district and society practically all control over education. 
It was thus easier for disinterested local communities to avoid 
responsibility for school support. 

In 1795 the school fund was established, the first in the United 
States. The income from this fund, together with the money 
from the state tax, made it possible to maintain schools in local 
communities several months each year without charging tuition 
or levying local taxes. It was believed that the fund income 
would support the schools. So we find that communities began 
to place complete reliance for such support upon this income and 
the state tax. In 1821, the state taxation ceased, and more de- 
pendence was now placed upon the fund income. The cost of 
schooling gradually increased, and communities which had not 
paid school taxes for several decades faced the problem of meet- 
ing the increase. Loath to levy taxes, they followed other early 

185 



186 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

precedents and charged tuition fees, which action had been legal- 
ized after the Revolution by the law of 1796. Other localities 
levied taxes and charged tuition. The earlier practice of exempt- 
ing the poor from payment of such fees was revived. Many dif- 
ficulties were encountered with the bills for tuition and the ex- 
emptions therefrom. Attempting to overcome these difficulties 
the state enacted the following series of laws: tuition law, 1796; 
fuel exemption law, 1824; first real rate-bill law, 1839; recodifi- 
cation, and fixing of maximum rates, 1856; rate-bills to be fixed 
"at or before commencement of term," 1858; rate-bills to be 
made out before close of term, 1860; pupils attending part of 
term required to pay full term tuition, 1862; many special acts 
to validate illegal practices, 1860-1864; last rate-bill law, 1864. 
These laws were all ineffectual attempts to make the rate-bill 
system work smoothly. 

The Town Deposit Flind was wastefuUy managed and did not 
better the situation. The necessity of levying taxes to pay in- 
terest on these funds may have helped to accustom some locali- 
ties again to pay taxes for schools. Local taxation, in town and 
district, was very important, greatly exceeding the support from 
town deposit funds, state school fund, or rate-bills. The people 
of Connecticut were slow to recognize the necessity of taxation to 
support schools. No state tax was levied from 1821 to 1856, yet 
by 1846 it was evident that if schools were to he free, taxation must he 
used to supplement other sources. 

The income from the state fund was not distributed efficiently 
to stimulate local support. That such was possible was shown by 
the record of the state to aid the growth of school libraries. Bet- 
ter methods of distribution of state fund income were advocated 
several times. If they had been used, local school support would 
have more rapidly increased. 

From 1800 to 1840, the tendencies in education were toward a 
general decline. About 1835, contemporary with the so-called 
"Common School Revival" in other states, some manifestations 
of an awakening interest in the schools began to appear. The 
work of a legislative counnittee, the establishment of the Board 
of Commissioners of Common Schools with Henry Barnard as 
secretary, and other agencies stimulated greater interest in 
schools. Gradually the aroused public sentiment took form in 
the general school code of 1856 which abolished school societies, 



Summary 187 

re-established a state tax for schools, but did not make schools free as 
had been denmTided by the State Teachers' Association. The 
tax estabUshed was one-tenth mill on the dollar to be levied l)y all 
towns in the state. It was chan{2;ed as follows: to three-tenths 
mill, 18G0; to four-tenths mill, 186G; to six-tenths mill, or enough 
to make schools free, 1808. The state made district taxation 
optional but it increased about as rapidly as the required town 
tax. 

Very slight evidences of actual existence of free schools arc 
found until after 1856. It is true that the school fund income 
may have made many schools free in the (earlier decad(^s. Hart- 
ford made its schools free in 1847, and free teachers' institutes 
and free normal school were provided in 1848 and 1849. From 
1853 to 1860, cities and towns consolidated their districts and, in 
some cases, made their schools free. ExampU^s are New Haven, 
New London, Collinsville, Norwalk and Norwich. In 1860, the 
state superintendent reported a total of 252 free school districts 
out of 1624. Wolcottville and Cromwell were reported free in 
1866. A year later, the secretary of the State Board of Educa- 
tion reported free secondary schools in the following places: 
Branford, Bristol, Colchester (Bacon Academy), East Hartford, 
Hartford, New Haven, Middletown, New London, Norwich, 
Stamford, Torrington, Waterbury, and Windham. From 1855 
to 1867, out of the 1,600 districts in the state, the estimated num- 
bers of free districts varied horn 699 to 1,325, leaving about 300 to 
be affected by the law of ISGS. From 1856 to 1868, approximately 
90 per cent, of the school support came from other sources than 
tuition and rate-bills. 

MICHIGAN 

The record of the free schools of Michigan began with the Fed- 
eral control of the Northwest Territory. The land survey or- 
dinance of 1785, the ordinance of 1787, and the subsequent 
"Powers to the Board of Treasury" gave guarantees that an 
attempt would ])e made to jirovide school facilities for the poor 
as well as for others, and set aside "lot 16" for the land endow- 
ment of the public schools. The territorial laws of 1795, estab- 
lishing "Orphans Courts," and "For the Ileli(!f of the Poor" 
were the first attempts to do what was proposed by the ordinance 
of 1787. These laws incorporated the idea that free education 



188 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

was charity and that apprenticeship for the poor should be pro- 
vided at public expense. Free education was for the poor only. 

In 1809, the schools were placed under the management of the 
overseers of the poor. Eight years later, free tuition for indigent 
students at the state university was provided. In 1827, a general 
system was inaugurated, based on local option, incorporating the 
townships and the small district units. Townships and districts 
could levy taxes, and the poor were exempted from providing 
fuel. Actual use of rate-bills including exemption of the poor, 
was provided by law in 1829. By 1837, the small district had 
greatly increased its powers at the expense of the township. This 
decentralization of control is similar to that in Connecticut, but 
not so complete. 

The constitution of 1837 required a minimum term of three 
months each year in all elementary schools, and established the 
office of state superintendent, John D. Pierce becoming the first 
incumbent. By the law of 1827, the township was to raise school 
support equal to that received from the state fund. In 1831, the 
town meetings were authorized to levy school taxes not to exceed 
one dollar per child of school age. In 1843, it was provided that 
twenty-five dollars for school support should be raised by each 
township, that in 1844 a tax of one-half mill on the dollar should 
be levied by the township, and for 1845 and after, such tax was 
to be one mill. In 1851, this tax was made two mills, in 1853, one 
mill, in 1859, raised to two mills again, and there it remained until 
1879. The total of this tax was much smaller than the district 
tax from 1842 to 1874. The district tax was optional as in Con- 
necticut. From 1850 to 1869, the more important events were: 

(1) agitation for state support of sectarian school, 1850-1853; 

(2) constitutional provision for free schools within five years and 
non-fulfillment of this requirement; (3) continued growth of 
rate-bills; (4) rate-bill law of 1859; (5) the optional consolida- 
tion and free school law of 1859 for graded and high schools; (6) 
the growth of free school districts from 1,200 to 2,500; (7) rapid 
growth of free schools in urban districts after 1862 ; (8) the growth 
of total school support by 1862 sufficient if properly distributed 
to make all schools free; (9) the case of Wall vs. Eastman show- 
ing that rate-bills could be collected by taxation; (10) concerted 
movement to abolish rate-bills, resulting in the law of 1869 pro- 
viding free schools. 



Summary 189 

The rapid growth of free school districts in Michigan was con- 
temporary with such growth in Connecticut. The record for 
free union districts is as follows: 1842, 1; 1843-1858, 5; 1858, 3 
out of 17; 1859, 18 out of 25; 1862, 27 out of 31. In 1866, the 
state superintendent referred to all such districts as free. 

From 1859 to 1867, the percentage of the districts free varied 
from 33 per cent, to 60 per cent., the average being 52 per cent. 
Twelve hundred and two were free in 1859, and 2,480 in 1867. 
Probably about 800-900, or 40 per cent., were free in 1855. A 
much smaller percentage of the districts in Michigan was free 
when the law of 1869 was enacted than the corresponding per- 
centage of free school districts in Connecticut. Michigan was 
adding new districts during this time, and the total in Connecti- 
cut was practically stationary at 1,600. 

CAUSAL AND INFLUENCING FACTORS 

What caused the people of these two states to establish free 
schools? In answer to this question, it is necessary to note cer- 
tain fundamental social beliefs and then many other influencing 
factors. First in importance was the faith in the efficacy of uni- 
versal education. This was present in the Connecticut colony, 
and it was held by the majority of the settlers of Michigan. In 
colonial Connecticut the belief was based upon reUgious, moral, 
and economic grounds. By 1850, less was said about these and 
more about the efficacy of a general education for political pur- 
poses in a democracy. When schools became secularized, faith 
in the moral value still persisted. Schools must be made free 
that education could be universal. Education must be universal 
so that the social ethics could be maintained and transmitted 
from one generation to its successors. When the political phase 
of this faith was emphasized it referred to popular suffrage in a de- 
mocracy. Popular government rests upon popular suffrage. The 
worth of the suffrage, and, hence, the efficiency of the government 
depend upon the degree of intelligence of the voters. Universal 
education would increase the intelligence and better the govern- 
ment. Hence, schools must be free so that education may reach all. 

Second, the growth of our political democracy made the masses 
of people more conscious of the doctrine of equality of opportunity 
for all. Making the same school privileges free was interpreted 
as equality of opportunity for all. Hence, a stronger demand for 
free schools. 



190 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Third, the beUef was held that caste-Uke social distinctions 
were out of place in a democracy. Some of these distinctions 
tended to persist and others tended to develop. It was believed 
that if all persons were subjected to the same schooling, such dis- 
tinctions would be prevented. Hence, the demand for universal 
education free to all. 

Fourth, a people holding such views might be expected, when 
they became aroused, to ask whether the existing schools attained 
the aims or results embodied in such principles. They did ask 
such questions and found the rate-bill school wanting in the fol- 
lowing respects: (1) in such schools, free education was charity 
and this tended to weaken the self-respect of the recipients of 
such privileges; (2) such schools tended to emphasize the divi- 
sion of people into two economic classes — paupers and non-pau- 
pers; (3) attendance and regularity of attendance decreased; (4) 
many poor children were compelled to "grow up in ignorance and 
vice"; (5) because of non-attendance due to (1) and (2), many 
children were denied equality of opportunity for an education; 
(6) likewise, non-attendance helped to weaken the interest of 
parents of absentees in welfare of schools ; (7) the absence of the 
poorer pupils caused more of the expense of the teacher's salary 
to be paid by those in regular attendance; (8) such schools 
placed a heavy burden of school support on those least able to 
bear it rather than on property ; (9) because of fear of increased 
expense, "rate-bill panics" sometimes occurred which practically 
broke up the schools affected; (10) it was found impossible to 
collect rate-bills in a satisfactory manner; (11) hence, the regu- 
lar payment of the teacher's salary was difficult and uncertain; 
(12) such a system was a practical denial of the right of society 
to tax property for the education of the youth ; (13) illiteracy was 
not decreased; (14) such a system tended to encourage the growth 
of a system of private schools believed to be more costly and to 
represent aristocratic tendencies. 

What social factors influenced the growth of free schools and 
favored the abolition of rate-bills? First, and probably fore- 
most, were the social-political beliefs listed above. Second, the 
growing conviction that the existing schools were not realizing 
such social-political ideals and were inferior in other respects. 
Third, the fact that the people of both states were of English 
ancestry meant the possession of certain educational traditions, 



Summary 191 

among which were the idea of free schools, exemption of poor 
from cost of schooUng, and payment of taxes to support appren- 
ticeship. Fourth, since EngUsh was the predominant language, 
there was but slight chance for the growth of separate linguistic 
groups in the two states, which would have opposed state control 
and demanded a division of resources so that their language 
might be preserved. Fifth, foreign immigration greatly in- 
creased illiteracy in both states. This accentuated one of the 
weaknesses of the rate-bill school, viz., inability to decrease illit- 
eracy, and intensified the demand for free schools. Sixth, in both 
states the negro population was practically a negligible factor 
either pro or con. Seventh, urban as compared with rural com- 
munities were more aggressive in favor of free schools and led in 
the growth of free schools. Eighth, the predominant elements 
of population in Michigan were from New York and New Eng- 
land. The following influencing conditions resulted : (1) Michi- 
gan favored the universal establishment of school facilities; (2) 
certain great personalities came from this group who favored free 
schools; (3) Michigan incorporated the rate-bill and public taxa- 
tion in its system of school support; (4) Michigan adopted the 
town (township) and small district as local units of school 
administration. Ninth, religious and sectarian factors were in- 
volved as follows: (1) in the secularizing tendency which suc- 
ceeded in providing that all of the money from the sale of the 
Western Reserve should be used to support schools; (2) in the 
large number of Connecticut clergymen who served as local school 
officials, usually as visitors, and their generally favorable attitude 
to betterment of schools ; (3) in the activities of the Connecticut 
ministers, 1867-1868, favorable to free schools; (4) in the sec- 
tarian demand in Michigan (1850-1853) that certain sects be al- 
lowed a share of the state school money, resulting in the definition 
of the free school as a secular school and the consequent preven- 
tion of the dissipation of school support and control; (5) in the 
religious motive of the colonists and their descendants for the 
establishment of schools. Practically all of these conditions 
were ultimately favorable to free schools. The second, third, 
and fifth were not only favorable but also influential in securing 
free schools. Tenth, teachers when represented by organiza- 
tions, or strong personalities, or by educational periodicals, gen- 
erally favored free schools, although in both states before 1860 



192 Development 0/ Free Schools in the United States 

teachers were divided on the question. Yet such personaUties 
as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard had very sUght influence, 
if any at all, on the development in Michigan. Eleventh, in- 
dustrial conditions helped to increase non-attendance, illiteracy^ 
and general ignorance. The rate-bill school could not cope with 
these difficulties, nor did it attempt to provide the varied types 
of training, such as recommended by Barnard, needed to meet 
changed industrial conditions. Consequently, free schools were 
desired so that attendance, literacy and general intelligence could 
be bettered. Twelfth, labor organizations of Connecticut and 
Michigan as distinct groups had little or no influence in securing 
free schools, although such groups were generally favorable to 
free public schools. Thirteenth, taxpayers opposed free schools 
(1) because of added expense, (2) because they would be required 
to pay taxes for the schooling of other people's children, (3) be- 
cause they desired to patronize private rather than public schools,, 
and (4) because they believed that secondary schools could not 
and should not be supported by taxation. Taxpayers also fa- 
vored free schools (1) because they believed that the moral values 
of education would be a protection to property, (2) because 
they believed public schools could be supported more cheaply 
than private schools, and (3) because many of them believed the 
free public school to be a democratic institution. The best evi- 
dence of the favorable attitude of this group is the rapid increase 
in the growth of optional district taxation in both states. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION 

1. From 1829 in Michigan and 1839 in Connecticut, the small 
district was the dominant unit of local educational administra- 
tion. It was too small to allow the use of any efficient mode of 
distribution of school money, or to have sufficient valuation to 
support schools well. On the other hand, it allowed for the 
growth of district taxation. 

2. Throughout the period neither the Connecticut town nor 
the Michigan town (township) as such had any great control over 
schools. Consequently, any great influence of this unit was absent. 

3. The county was not a unit of educational administration in 
either state until 1867, when Michigan created the office of county 
superintendent. As a unit of administration, its influence was 
practically nothing. 



Summary 193 

4. The state school funds in both states and the town deposit 
fund in Connecticut were largely unused possibilities so far as 
they are considered of influence in securing free schools. The 
state funds probably had some influence in maintaining a mini- 
mum term of school in both states. In general, these funds were 
not used to stimulate local school support, and hence did not con- 
stitute a factor of much strength favorable to free schools. The 
Connecticut state school fund retarded the coming of free schools. 

5. In both states, rate-bills helped to prolong the school term, 
but the difficulties involved in their use far outweighed such an 
advantage. 

6. In both states required town (township) taxation for schools 
did much to make schools free, it being the stronger in Connecti- 
cut. 

7. In both states, optional district taxation, at first small in 
amount, finally came to be the largest single item of school sup- 
port, and thus the most influential financial element in making 
schools free. 

8. The state superintendents were generally favorable to free 
schools. From 1856 to 1870 they were usually aggressive in the 
demand for free schools. Hosford of Michigan, and Northrop of 
Connecticut were most ardent in their desires to make schools 
free. Barnard, at first favorable, later changed his attitude. 

9. The governors of both states and the school fund commis- 
sioners of Connecticut had little influence either for or against 
free schools. Governor English of Connecticut is the one ex- 
ception of importance. 

10. The county superintendents of Michigan (1867-1869) 
were favorable to free schools, and helped much to create favor- 
able sentiment for the free school law of 1869. 

MISCELLANEOUS FACTORS 

1. Political Theory influenced the movement as follows: (a) 
centralization of control was utilized to a slight degree by the es- 
tablishment of the offices of state superintendent and state board 
of education; (b) belief in strong local control perpetuated the 
small district system; (c) belief in certain democratic principles, 
mentioned above, favored free schools. 

2. The financial panics of 1837 and 1857 had but sUght retard- 
ing influence on the movement. 



194 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

3. Tho Civil War detracted pul)lic interest and support from 
the schools and thus retarded free school growth. 

4. Private schools were, in general, a hindrance to the growth 
of free schools. 

RESULTS 

The observable results of the estal)lishnient of free schools 
were as follows: (1) a small increase in public school attendance 
and d(H',reaso in private school attendance; (2) a quite general 
disappcarancre of the old con(H',ption that free public education 
was charity; (3) in Connecticut, the espousal of the free school 
policy by the two leading political parties; (4) the establishment 
of the free school principle as a l)asis upon which many later ex- 
tensions have been made in both states; (5) likewise, a basis 
upon which (!ompulsory attendance laws were soon enacted in 
both states; ((')) judicial determination in the Kalamazoo high 
school case of free school principle applied to secondary educa- 
tion; (7) provision of equal educational opportunities for all, so 
far as like opi)ortiUMit.ies iivx) to all are ecjual opportunities. 

The establishment of free schools has not produced the mil- 
lennium predicted by its enthusiastic advocates . We have not 
yet succeeded in really e(iualizing educational opportunities. 
We still have caste-like social distinctions, and the problem of 
moral education is still very much an enigma. Popular suffrage 
is far from being all that is desired, and our percentage of illit- 
eracy is still too high to be satisfactory. Yet the free public 
school is essential to a really democratic society, and it is one of 
the elements of any comprehensive educational system which is 
democratic in its own character. 

The change in public opinion represented by adoption of the 
free s(^ho()l policy is one of the great sociological changes of the 
last century. It involves millions in money, millions of people, 
and ultimately a most gigantic educational program including 
all grades and varieties of educational institutions. 

SOMK PRINCIPLES ]:)l«:M()NSTRATl^:i) BY THE 

STUDY 

First. Tl\is study d(Mnonstrates the practical impossibility of 
using a tnition Ki/stcni. of .school support in a (h'niocraiic community. 
The record on this is so clear that it needs no further conunent. 



Summary 195 

Second. The study also demonstrates the fact that it is not 
necessary for parents to pay tuition fees to be interested in schools. 
We undoubtedly have fj;reator interest in schools than ever be- 
fore, and schools are nioie fiee than ever before. Barnard's con- 
tention that a small tuition fee nuist be collected in order to keep 
parents interested is not valid. 

Third. Inasnmch as the greatest indifference toward s(^hools 
existed in Connecticut when little or no taxation was used for 
school support, and inasnnuih as the greater' portion of school 
support came later from optional district taxation in l)()tli states 
when rapid educational progress was being made, it would seem 
that taxation is not a means of promoting inttncst, but rather an 
evidence of interest caused very largely by other factors. The 
fact that the taxation was optional shows that it was the result 
of other factors. 

Fourth. The history of the Connecticut school fund shows 
how impossible it was in that state to support the schools solely 
by the income from the fund. If true for Connecticut, it would 
also be true for other states. Educational systems that are mak- 
ing progress demand continuously increasing support. This can- 
not be supplied by such a fund for when the need for income is 
greatest, the incoine from such invested funds is not likely to be 
any higher than at other times. But another type of school sup- 
port can supply this need. 

Fifth. The r(!cord of both states reveals the absolute necessity 
of taxation as the most important single means of support for a 
system of free public schools. It is an evidence of interest if the 
taxation is optional, and may be so if recjuired by state law. The 
ability to pay taxes depends ultimately upon the degree of pro- 
ductivity of the citizenship of the state. This ability keeps pace 
in its changes with th(; greater demands for increased (Mlucational 
advantages, for when people are prosperous they are more fre- 
quently inclined to make new and increasing demands. 

Sixth. Local taxation should y)e utilized. Such taxation 
makes it possible for enterprising communities to make rapid 
advances which would be impossible under the ordinary regula- 
tions for state taxation. Tlu; record for this type of school sup- 
port in both states shows its great importance. In Connecticut, 
Hartford, Meriden, Bristol, etc., and in Michigan, Ann Arbor, 
Detroit and Grand Rapids are examples of local development 



196 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

made possible by local taxation and impossible under the existing 
state taxation. 

Seventh. The study also shows the need of state taxation. 
The evidence is of two kinds. (1) The town and township taxes 
in the two states made it possible and necessary for all taxpayers 
to contribute something to school support, which they would not 
have done if the matter had been optional. In a sense, these 
taxes were state taxes, because the state required them to be 
levied and collected. (2) The record of the distribution of state 
financial aid in both states shows that the methods of appor- 
tionment did contribute greatly in keeping schools in session. 
Further, the record of the state aid to libraries in Connecticut 
reveals how well local support can be stinmlated by proper ap- 
portionment systems. This is practically the same principle of 
taxation and apportionment set forth by Cubbcrley. (See his 
School Funds and Their Apportionment) 

Ei(jhlh. It has also been demonstrated that the free school 
policy is in accord with some of the most fundamental principles 
of democracy. The evidence need not here be repeated. If it is 
in accord with democratic principles, it is the correct policy for 
our states to pursue in all matters of education of vital impor- 
tance to great numbers of people. 

The free schools of 1870-1880 were based upon the conception 
of an education for all consisting of but little more than school- 
room instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Since then 
the conception of education has appreciably widened to include 
instruction in some half dozen additional subjects. Our con- 
ception of education widened and we assumed that this broader 
conception was that of the free school. Very recently we have 
added kindergartens, school gardens, some new types of high 
schools; have added new courses in language, social science, 
natural science, and vocational subjects. Again as our concep- 
tion of schoolroom education has expanded, we have made that 
the conception of the free school. This growth of the free school 
conception of education indicates that as our very comprehensive 
theoretical educational aims of the present become the actual 
working aims of the education provided, they, too, will be in- 
cluded in the free school conception of education. Such is the 
trend of events. If the society remains democratic, is this trend 
what it should be? If new elements of education are considered 



Summary 197 

universally necessary, or necessary for large groups of peoi)le, 
they must be free, or else be out of harmony with the princi{)le of 
equality of opportunity of democracy. The trend is correct for a 
democratic state. This, then, is the answer to many questions 
to-day. Shall health education and health inspection be sup- 
ported by the public? Shall the newer types of vocational edu- 
cation be free? Shall the differentiated curricula of the junior 
high school, and other plans for reorganiz;ation entailing addi- 
tional cost, be free? Shall text-books and apparatus be free? 
Shall we feed and clothe the children of the indigent, and grant 
mothers' pensions so that children of the widowed poor may se- 
cure educational advantages? Shall we provide school lunches 
free of cost? Shall we train lawyers, physicians, farmers, minis- 
ters and teachers without charging them tuition foes? Shall the 
privileges of a general education be granted to adults who need 
them, as well as to minors? Shall we provide consolidated rural 
free schools? Shall we establish fi'ce county libraries? Shall we 
provide transportation of pupils, whenever needed, at public ex- 
pense? Shall the public support scientific investigation and re- 
search in our graduate schools? Sb.all the general treasury pay 
the cost of scientific expeditions to little known parts of the world 
in order to increase our common fund of knowledge? Shall pub- 
lic taxation maintain museums of art, history, and science? To 
all of these questions, the answer is an unqualified affiiniative if 
we are to keep our educational system in accord with democracy. 
Of course, it may be objected that such a course is in)possible l^e- 
cause of the cost. But that is quite another question. Ex- 
pediency will settle that. That they should be free is clear; that 
they can be free will have to be settled by conditions of time and 
place. However, the fact that society is already maintaining 
practically all of these features at the present time gives some 
evidence that they can be made free. 

Ninth. Will a comprehensive free school policy pauperize the 
people? The climax of the movement in Connecticut caused tie 
reappearance of the ancient sentiment that free schooling was 
charity. This same sentiment reappears to-day whenever it is 
proposed that the free school principle be extended. The history 
of free schools for the last fifty years shows no such general effect 
upon the people. Northrop declared that free schools were not a 
matter of charity but rather a matter of general need. We are 

14 



198 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

also finding that as we add new elements to our free schools that 
people are not thereby rendered more inefficient and indifferent 
to industry and frugality. Such would have to be the effect if we 
pauperized them. These facts lead us to believe that, carefully 
administered, the comprehensive free school policy will not pau- 
perize the people. 

Tenth. The theory of free schools indicates that practically 
all schooling should be free, and that all persons should profit by 
such advantages. Consequently, even though private tuition 
schools may exist, their continued existence is at variance with 
the underlying philosophy of the free school system. 

Eleventh. Again and again, the low standards of the public 
schools became the excuse for fostering and patronizing private 
tuition schools. If we escape the same tendency to a large degree, 
it will be because we have maintained high standards in the 
schools supported at public expense. Well trained teachers, 
curricula adapted to modern needs, democracy of spirit in ad- 
ministration and in instruction, adequate facilities and support 
will be necessary. 

Twelfth. Since belief in democratic principles was one promi- 
nent factor in bringing the free school system into existence, free 
school support and such principles are found combined. Hence, 
if free schools cease to be exponents of democratic principles, and 
if their administrative character tends more and more to the 
undemocratic, we may expect the public to distrust them, and 
ultimately to withdraw support from them. If the people them- 
selves ceased to believe in democracy, this principle would not hold. 

Thirteenth. The free school movement revealed the value of 
leadership of the expert in education. In a very true sense 
Barnard, Mann, Pierce, and Northrop were, for their times, ex- 
perts in education. 

Fourteenth. The record of the movement is one of gradual 
growth of opinion favorable to free schools. This sentiment was 
the result of many educational factors. The whole movement, 
then, becomes an example showing how important advances in edu- 
cation can be made by a wise policy of educating public opinion. 

Fifteenth. The study also shows the great power of ideals as 
factors in bringing about important changes. The religious ideal 
of the need of universal education for morality and the ideals of 
political democracy were the most important causal factors in the 
movement. 



APPENDICES 

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Works and Sources Consulted 

1. Reports, U. S. Commissioner of Education. 

1894-95, 2:1551-1615. 1895-96, 1:219-266. 1900-1901, 1:403-490 
357-401. 1898-99, 1:357-450. 1890-91, 2:881-921. 1894-95, 2: 
1513-1550. 1892-93, 2:1683-1703. 1903, 1:391-462. 1896-97 1- 
769. 1896-97, 1:715-767. 1897-98, 1:355-486. 1894-95, 2:1505^ 
1511. 1893-94, 1 : 639-738. These references include articles by A. D. 
Mayo on the development of common schools in various states. In 
some few cases, the material includes good sources, but usually the 
articles are rather general and lack good organization. 

1872, 224-230. 1885-86, 130 (New Jersey), 307-312 (Louisiana). 1892- 
93, 2: 1225-1414, Documents Illustrative of American Educational 
History, Hinsdale. 1899-1900, 1:381^03 (Virginia). 

2. Circulars of Information, U. S. Bureau of Education. Series, Contribu- 

tions to American Educational History, edited by H. B. Adams. 
1890, No. 1, Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Education. 
1893, No. 3, Powell, History of Education in Delaware. 

1893, No. 6, Parker, Higher Education in Iowa. 

1894, No. 1, Tolman, History of Higher Education in Rhode Island. 
1898, No. 1, Fay, History of Education in Louisiana. 

1898, No. 3, Bush, History of Education in New Hampshire. 

1899, No. 1, Murray, History of Education in New Jersey. 

1899, No. 3, Lewis, History of Higher Education in Kentucky. 

1900, No. 3, Sherwood, University of the State of New York. 
1900, No. 4, Bush, History of Education in Vermont. 

1902, No. 1, Whitehill, History of Education in West Virginia. 

1903, No. 2, Lane, History of Education in Te.xas. 

3. Bulletin, U. S. Bureau of Education. 

1915, No. 12, Weeks, History of PubHc School Education in Alabama. 
1912, No. 12, Kilpatrick, Dutch Schools of New Netherlands and Colonial 
New York. 

4. Special Studies, Laws, Reports, etc. 

Martin, Evolution of the Massachusetts Public School System. 
Stockwell, History of Education in Rhode Island. 
Higginson, Education in Rhode Island. 
Wickersham, History of Education in Pennsylvania. 
Boone, Education in Indiana. 

199 



200 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Palmer, Public School Society of New York. 

Randull, The New York School System. 

Swett, PMl)lic Edvication in Culifornia. 

Lewis, W. G., l^iogniphy of Samuel Lewis. 

Ingli.s, Rise of the High School in Massachusetts. Teachers College 

Contrilmtions to Education, No. 45. 
Rawles, Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of Indiana. 
Orth, Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of Ohio. 
Patterson, The Constitutions of Ohio. 
Maxwell's Code, Ijaws of the Northwest Territory. 
Laws of Ohio, ]S();}-1S53. 
Education in Oliio, Centennial Volume, 1876. 
Historical Sketches of Public Schools, Ohio. 
Finegan, Development of the New York School System. 
Jackson, School Support in Colonial Massachusetts. Teachers College 

Contributions to Education, No. 25. 
Seybolt, Apprent iccship in Colonial New England and New York. Teach- 
ers College C'ontrii)uti()ns to Education, No. 85. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CONNECTICUT 

SoUItCES 

1. Laws of Connecticut, Editions of 1790, 1805, 1808, 1824, 1852-54, 1855, 

1850-57, 1858, 1860, 1861, 1802, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 
1809. 

2. Connecticut School Document, No. 10, 1910, 17-20. Chap. 111. 

3. Connecticut Historical Society Collections. 111:1-08 (Pierson's Indian 

Catechism). VI: Record of Hartford Town Votes, 1035-1710. Con- 
tains references to api>n)priat ions for schools, binding (children as appren- 
tices, school fuel reciuirements, enforcement of apprentice-regulations. 

4. Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, before and after the union 

with New Haven Colony, May, 1()G5. Published imder supervision 
of the state, Hartford. 1850-1892. Sixteen volumes: 1030-1780. A 
most valuable source of information. 

5. New Haven Historical Society Pai)ers. 1:147-170. 111:1-32,227-248, 

405-442, 253-298, 247-274, 301-314. Articles by Oilman, Dexter, 
Hodges, and lialdwin, (m Yale College and related topics. 

6. House Journal, C'oimecticut General Assembly, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, 

1853, 1854, 1855, 1859. 

7. Senate Journal, Connecticut General Assembly, 1800, 1808. 

8. Connecticut Legislative Documents, 1801, 1805, 1866, 1807. 

9. Connecticut Public Documents, 1802, 1803, 1804. 

10. Connecticut Conunon School Journal, 1838-1842, 1850-1808. The issues 

of 1838-1842 are found in many libraries. The others are accessible in 
the Hartford Public Library, and the Library of the U. S. Bureau of 
Education. A very valuable source of information. 

11. Reports of the Commissioner of the Common School Fund. Usually pub- 

lished with the Connecticut School Reports. 



Appendices 201 

12. Connecticut School Reports. 

A. Reports of the Board of Commissioners of Common Schools and 
Secretary of Board, 1838-1842. 

B. Reports of the Superintendent of Common Schools, 1845-1865. 

C. Reports of the Connecticut Board of Education, 1865-1880. 
Greatest source of information used in this study of Connecticut. 

13. American Journal of Education and College Review, II, 1856. Contains 

some very good material. 

14. Commons and Sumner, Documentary History of American Industrial 

Society. References of Labor and Education. Vol. V: 56-66, 67-72, 
94-117, 165-177, 188-191, 195-199. Vol. VI: 119, 207, 221, 235-236, 
255, 268, 269, 270, 275, 276, 278. 

15. American Journal of Education, Barnard. (Much of this is not source 

material.) 1: 659-738 (Work of Henry Barnard). 2: 469-472 (Con- 
ditions in 1856, Philbrick) ; 665-700 (Norwich Free Academy). 3: 191- 
212 (Norwich Free Academy, continued). 4: 657-710 (History of 
Common Schools in Connecticut. Also found in Conn. Rept. for 1853). 
5: 114-154 (History of Schools, continued) ; 541-566 (History of Yale); 
715-726 (Elihu Yale and Yale College). 6: 104-106 (Normal School 
and S. J. North); 325-425 (Hillhouse and the History of the School 
Fund). 10: 15-58 (Normal School); 681-694 (Influence of Yale). 
11: 219-232 (Mark Hopkins); 305-312 (Conditions in 1860). 13: 123- 
144 (Schools as They Were Sixty Years Ago). 14: 244 (1845-1849). 
15: 275-331 (1849-1854); 386-395 (Development of Teachers' Insti- 
tutes); 606 (Camp); 593-612 (Educational Associations). 17: 88-89 
(Constitutional Provisions); 211-224 (The Clergy of Connecticut and 
Popular Education); 654 (Normal School). 18: 294-302 (Descriptive 
and Statistical). 19: 328-335 (Education of Colored Race); 403-409 
(Salaries in Cities of Connecticut and Other States); 419-464 (Rules 
and Regulations of Public Schools) ; 505-508 (Course of Study at New 
Haven and Norwich Free Academy) ; 801-826 (Illiteracy in the United 
States in 1840). 22: 401^09 (Hartford High Schools, 1869). 24: 
144-146 (Education in 1796— Winterbotham); 165-170 (Yale); 171 
(Educational Statistics) ; 233-238 (History of Schools) ; 553-560 (School- 
houses in Norwich and New Haven). 25: 11 (Statistics); 36-45 (Sta- 
tistical, and School System, 1870-1880) . 26 : 201 (Conditions in 1806— 
Webster) ; 230-256 (Yale in 1792-1796) . 28 : 163-176 (History of State 
and Education) ; 177-304 (Hopkins Bequest, Common Schools to 1877) ; 
321-329; 337-352 (Sheffield and Yale); 792-797 (Tisdale and the 
Lebanon School). 

16. Census Reports of United States and Connecticut. 

17. Records of the Court of Assistants of Massachusetts, Vol. II. 

18. Source and secondary material from Reports, U. S. Commissioner of 

Education. 
1867-68, 141-142, 217-231 (Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges). 
1902, 1: 887-891 (Services of Henry Barnard). 
1892-93, 2: 1256-1261 (History of School Fund). 
1896-97, 2: 1175-1178 (Early Schools). 
1876, 43-45 (History of Schools). 



202 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

State and General Histories 

1. Doyle, English Colonies in America. 

2. Trumbull, Connecticut. Two volumes. 

3. Hollister, Connecticut. Two volumes. 

4. Greene, M. L., Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut. 

5. Coman, Industrial History of the United States. 

6. Mead, N. P., Connecticut as a Corporate Colony, 

Histories of Educational Conditions 

1. Boone, Education in the United States. 

2. Brown, Making of our Middle Schools. 

3. Carlton, Education and Industrial Evolution. 

4. Clews, Colonial Educational Legislation and Administration. 

5. Cubberley, School Funds and Their Apportionment. 

6. Dexter, History of Education in the United States. 

7. Steiner, History of Education in Connecticut. Circular of Information, 

No. 2, 1893, U. S. Bureau of Education. 

8. Swift, Public Permanent Conunon School Fimds. 

9. Willson, Town Management of Schools in Connecticut. Master's thesis, 
li Teachers College, Columbia University. 

10. Updegraff, Origin of the Moving School in Massachusetts, Teachers College 

Contributions to Education, No. 17. 

11. Carlton, Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United 

States. Doctor's dissertation, University of Wisconsin. 

Miscellaneous 

1. Cubberley, State and County Educational Reorganization. 

2. Monroe, Cyclopedia of Education. Articles on Connecticut Schools and 

School System. 



Appendices 



203 



CONNECTICUT 

TABLE I 
Population and Social Statistics 



Year 


Total Population 


Whites 


Slaves 


Free Colored 


1701 


30,000 (est.) 








1749 


100,000 (est.) 








1775 


262,000 (est.) 








1790 


238,141 


232,581 


2,759 


2.801 


1800 


251,002 


244,721 


951 


5,330 


1810 


262,042 


255,279 


310 


6,453 


1820 


275,202 


267,161 


97 


7,944 


1830 


297,675 


289,603 


25 


8,047 


1840 


309,978 


301,765 


17 


8,205 


1850 


370,792 


363,099 




7,693 


1860 


460,147 


451,504 




8,627 


1865 


522,145 (est.) 








1870 


537,454 


527,549 




9,668 



Illiteract* 





Total 
Aliens 


Illiterates 


Per cent. Pop. 
4-16 Yrs. Old 


Year 


Native 


Aliens 


White 


Colored 


1820 
1830 
1840 
1850 
1860 
1870 


568 
1,481 

38,518 
80,696 


1.293 
5,678 


4,013 
23,938 


548 
4,739 

27,913 


17 
567 

l,675t 


30.59 
28.55 
26.67 
24.46 
22.92 



Vocations 



Year 


All Vocations 


Agricultural 


Manufacturing and Trades 


1840 
1850 
1860 
1870 


95,275 

97,013 

161,366 


56,955 


27,932 

64,469 (20,467 females) 
89,527 (20,810 females) 



Nativity of Population in 1850 



Me. 


670 


Conn. 


292,653 


Va. 288 


N. H. 


795 


N. Y. 


14,416 


Ga. 217 


Vt. 


1,508 


N. J. 


1,174 


Ohio 400 


Mass. 


11.366 


Penn. 


1,035 


.\.verage for all other states 


R. I. 


6,890 


Md. 


265 


(19) was 48. 



* In 1870, Connecticut had 19.680 persons, ages ten years and above who could not read, and 
29,616 who could not write. 

t Unable to write, aged ten and above. 

Note. — These statistics are compiled from the U. S. census reports in practically every item. 



204 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

TABLE II 
Rate-Bills in Connecticut, School Districts, Total Support 



Year 


Total 


Diet. 


Dist. in 


Total Receipts 




Rate-Bills 


Using 


the State 


All Sources 


1837 






1,664 




1846 


$17,076.93 




1,351 




1855 


31,839.00 


941 


1,640 




1856 


35,000.00 


950 


1,626 


$349,547.39 


1857 


38,960.00 


747 


1,626 


352,252.42 


1858 


45,499.00 


776 


1,614 


358,235.40 


1859 


38,381,00 


691 


1,624 


394,315.40 


1860 


39,164.00 


778 


1,624 


390,201.90 


1861 


31,847.00 




1,623 


345,184.00 


1862 


31,399.00 




1,632 


391,550.35 


1863 


29,466.00 




1,626 


402,187.40 


1864 


31,422.00 




1,609 


390,454 . 20 


1865 


49,984.25 


499 


1,623 


453,663.28 


1866 


76,441.92 




1,609 


562,241.40 


1867 


89,260.03 




1,590 


704,986.70 


1868 


139,406.84 




1,572 


983,806.32 


1869 






1,570 


1,043,086.71 



TABLE III 
School Fund Dividends 



Year 


Children 


Dividend 




1799 
1800 




$60,403.78 
23,651 . 10 1 




Under original committeee. 


1801 




15,073.27 






1802 




15,959.75 






1803 




47,505.02 






1804 




49,312.74 






1805 
1806 




45,157.39 
47,941.87 




Under board of four managers. 


1807 




39,100.77 






1808 




41,022.17 






1809 




26,540.68 






1810 


J 


45,088.90 






1811 




45,531.59 






1812 




32,309.80 






1813 




26,075.10 






1814 




39,223.50 






1815 




38,878.00 






1816 




40,595.72 






1817 




40,186.32 




Under first commiBsioner, 


1818 




49,404.98 




Hillhouse. 


1819 




58,020.62 






1820 




58,439 . 36 






1821 




67,429.60 






1822 • 




68,013.60 






1823 




72,203.25 






1824 




72,190.50 







Appendices 
Table III — School Fund Dividends — Concluded 



205 



Year 


Children 


Dividend 


Per Capita Dividend 


1825 


84,976 


$72,229 . 60 


$0.85 


1826 


84,851 


72,123.55 


.85 


1827 


84,876 


72,144.60 


.85 


1828 


85,147 


72,374.95 


.86 


1829 


84,889 


72,164.15 


.86 


1830 


85,006 


76,505.40 


.90 


1831 


85,090 


76,851.00 


.90 


1832 


85,095 


76,585.50 


.90 


1833 


85,172 


80,913.40 


.95 


1834 


83,644 


79,401 . 80 


.95 


1835 


83,799 


83,769.01 


1.00 


1836 


83,506 


87,733.80 


1.05 


1837 


83,359 


95,862.85 


1.15 


1838 


83,122 


99,746.40 


1.20 


1839 


83,925 


104,906.25 


1.25 


1840 


82,676 


103,345.00 


1.25 


1841 


84,148 


113,594.80 


1.35 


1842 


83,618 


117,065.20 


1.40 


1843 


84,640 


118,496.00 


1.40 


1844 


84,084 


117,717.60 


1.40 


1845 


84,093 


117,730.20 


1.40 


1846 


85,275 


119,385.00 


1.40 


1847 


86,697 


125,710.65 


1.45 


1848 


86,984 


126,126.80 


1.45 


1849 


88,911 


133,366.50 


1.50 


1850 


90,700 


136,050.00 


1.60 


1851 


92,220 


129,108.00 


1.40 


1852 


94,852 


132,792.80 


1.40 


1853 


96,382 


133,280.90 


1.35 


1854 


98,980 


141,295.00 


1.40 


1855 


100,294 


129,038.75 


1.25 


1856 


100,820 


131,066.00 


1.30 


1857 


100,545 


140,763.00 


1.40 


1858 


101,486 


142,080.40 


1.40 


1859 


103,103 


134,033.90 


1.30 


1860 


105,464 


131,825.00 


1.35 


1861 


108,389 


124,647.35 


1.15 


1862 


109,042 


130,850.40 


1.20 


1863 


110,490 


132,589.20 


1.20 


1864 


112,098 


134,517.60 


1.20 


1865 


114,825 


132,048.75 


1.15 


1866 


118,780 


130,658.00 


1.10 


1867 


120,884 


132,972.40 


1.10 


1868 


123,650 


136,015.00 


1.10 


1869 


124,082 


124,082.00 


1.00 


1870 


125,407 


125,407.00 


1.00 


1871 


128,468 


128.468.00 


1.00 


1872 


131,748 


131,748.00 


1.00 


1873 


132,908 


132,908.00 


1.00 


1874 


133,528 


133,528.00 


1.00 


1875 


134,976 


148,473.60 


1.10 


1876 


135,189 


135,189.00 


1.00 


1880 


140,235 


112,188.00 


.80 


1882 


146,188 


87,721.20 


.60 


1883 


149,466 


112,096.50 


.75 



(Barnard, American Journal of Education, 6:425. Conn. Rept., 1884, 19-20.) 



206 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

TABLE IV 
Town Tax, District Tax, and Total Resources per Child of School Aqb 



Year 


Town Tax 


District Tax 


Resources per Child 


1855 


$70,129.37* 


$13,603. OOt 




1856 


71,440.66* 


50,000.00 (circ.) 


$3.31 


1857 


71,437.00* 


52,637.00 


3.31 


1858 


71,656.00* 


74,493.00 


3.55 


1859 


72,342.00* 


84,819.00 


3.95 


1860 


72,342.00 


37,156.00 


3.78 


1861 


76,422.00 


87,231.00 


3.27 


1862 


78,540.00 


103.943.00 


3.61 


1863 


75,213.00 


96.964.00 


3.70 


1864 


87,704.00 


140,414.00 


3.54 


1865 


91,280.31 


201,066.38 


4.05 


1866 


93,726. 10 


317,977.37 


4.90 


1867 


149,680.99 


466,931.90 


5.94 


1868 


160,347.35 


467,804.77 


8.14 


1869 


415,318.26 


491,420.61 


8.44 


1870 


568,387.50 


498,846.09 


10.23 


1871 


641,837.76 


410,708.11 


11.83 


1873 


642,194.11 


485,523.56 


11.70 


1874 


588,873.44 


499,555.19 


10.95 


1875 


669,856.88 


502,500.80 


11.60 



♦One per cent, tax required by state law. 

tin addition there was $25,884.00 of society tax. Compiled from Conn. Repts., 1868, 1869, 
1876. Some corrections were required to reduce the statistics to orderly sequence. 



TABLE V 

Teachers' Salaries 



Year 


Men 


Women 


Year 


Men 


Women 


1835 


$13.45 




1865 


$33.00 


$18.00 


1837 


14.50 


$5.75 


1866 


43.08 


22.61 


1846 


15.42 


6.86 


1867 


45.21 


23.14 


1847 


16.00 


6.50 


1868 


52.00 


24.91 


1855 


25.95 


16.30 


1869 


58.74 


29.16 


1856 


28.75 


17.25 


1870 


63.10 


31.29 


1857 


29.00 


17.25 


1871 


66.56 


32.69 


1858 


30.00 


16.00 


1872 


67.01 


34.09 


1859 


30.84 


16.66 


1873 


69.03 


36.05 


1860 


30.05 


16.59 


1874 


71.48 


36.67 


1861 


31.20 


17.34 


1875 


70.05 


37.35 


1862 


32.02 


16.14 


1876 


67.43 


37.16 


1863 


28.12 


15.80 


1877 


64.55 


36.20 


1864 


28.74 


16.82 


1878 


61.03 


36.50 



(Compiled from Conn. Repts., especially those for 1868, p. 141, and for 1879, p. 22.) 



Appendices 



207 



TABLE VI 

Districts, by Counties, which Levied Town and District Tax, and 

Number Which Used Rate-Bills, 1863-1865. (Conn. Repts., 

1863-1865) 



County 


Total 
No. of 
Diat. 


Taxes 


Rate-Bills 


1863 


1864 


1865 


1863 


1864 


1865 


Hartford 
New Haven 
New London 
Fairfield 
Litchfield 
Windham 
Middlesex 
Tolland 


247 
206 
204 
245 
287 
167 
121 
124 


65 
20 
13 
13 
25 
16 
12 
33 


46 
16 
23 
21 
115 
25 
13 
14 


55 
23 
20 
15 
13 
17 
27 
11 


45 
54 
34 
91 
91 
14 
15 
16 


59 
50 
46 
65 
108 
11 
21 
8 


49 
40 
28 
60 
48 
17 
23 
31 


Totals 


1.601 


195 


273 


181 


360 


368 


296 



TABLE VII 

Number of Towns Using Rate-Bills, and Not Using Rate-Bills, 

1866-1867 



County 


1866 


1867 


No tuition 


Tuition 


No tuition 


Tuition 


Hartford 


8 


19 


3 


24 


New Haven 


3 


24 


2 


25 


New London 


6 


18 


3 


21 


Fairfield 


4 


19 





23 


Windham 


6 


10 


3 


13 


Litchfield 


3 


22 


1 


24 


Middlesex 


3 


13 


1 


15 


Tolland 


5 


8 


4 


9 


Totals 


38 


123 


17 


134 



(Compiled from Conn. Repts., 1866, pp. 132-150, and 1867, Appendix.) 



208 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

TABLE VIII 
Revenue from Local Taxation and Districts Levying Tax 



Year 


Total 


Per Scholar 


Dist. with Tax 


1856 


$121,441.00 


$1.21 




1857 


124,074.00 


1.22 


166 


1858 


146,149.00 


1.42 


245 


1859 


156,761.00 


1.49 


252 


1860 


162,500.00 


1.50 


226 


1861 


163,653.00 


1.50 




1862 


182,483.00 


1.65 




1863 


172,177.00 


1.54 




1864 


228,118.00 


1.99 


181 


1865 


292,347.00 


2.55 


291 


1866 


411,703.47 


3.50 




1867 


616,611.89 


5.10 




1868 


628,152.12 


5.07 




1869 


906,738.87 


7.14 





(Compiled from Conn. Repts., 1867, p. 26, and various other annual reports.) 



TABLE LX 

Proportion of Public Funds, as Contrasted with Local Tax or Fund^ 
Used in Certain Instances 

A. Oxford Society, 1848. (Kept. Conn. Bd. of Ed., 1849, 89) 

State school fund $592.60 58% from fund. 

Town deposit fund 245 . 67 

Local fund income 22 .94 

Total $861 .21 

Teachers' salaries $1,167 .80 

Amount raised by other means than inter- 
est from funds $306.59 

B. WiUimantic Society, 1848. {Ibid., Ill) 

State school fund $780.00 86% from fund. 

Town deposit fund 99.80 

"School society" 24.00 

Total $903.80 

C. Salisbury Society, 1848. {Ibid., 129) 

State school fund $1,186 . 10 85% from fund. 

Town deposit fund 158 .93 

"School society" 54.16 

Total $1,399 . 19 

"Amount paid out" $1,399.19 

D. Stratford Society, 1855. (Conn. Rept., 1855, Appendix, 97) 

State school fund $645 .40 47% from fund. 

Town deposit fund 127 .72 

Local fund 88.00 

Tuition or rate-bills 513 .51 

Total expenditures $1,374.63 



Appendices 209 

E. Seventeen districts in Thompson Society, 1851. (Rept., 1851, 102) 

State school fund $1,790.95 80% from fund. 

Town deposit fund 267 . 30 

Local fund 42 . 32 

"District contributions" 86.40 

Children of school age 1,335 

Local support per child $0 . 0625 

General fund support $1 . 55 

Tuition of thirteen children to private 

schools $111.00 

DOCUMENT 1 

Statement of a Member of the State Board of Education about 
Pauper Schools, made about 1867, before the Bridgeport Teachers' Institute 
and reported in the Daily Standard. Cited from that source in the Report of the 
State Board of Education, by the secretary, 1868, pp. 137-138. 

"Our school system, which we have inherited from our fathers, is in danger. 
That system which opens to all, the rich and the poor, the great advantages of 
education, some able men among us are seeking to overthrow. These revolu- 
tionists say the state has no right to educate any but paupers. All others 
should be excluded from the public schools. Instead of being common schools, 
that is open to all, they would have ' pauper school' written over the entrance 
to the pubhc school. Men are now busy in this state to disseminate these 
views. Now the state cannot afford to falter in the support of good public 
schools. The state needs the addition to its value, — to its wealth producing 
power, which the common school alone can bring. But that is unjust, say 
these revolutionists. You have no right to tax me to educate my neighbor's 
children. I reply, it is essential to the interest, the prosperity, the thrift, the 
virtue and morality of the people, that all be educated. That which lies at 
the foundation of the state, that which is a vital necessity of the state must be 
maintained. If I hve half a mile beyond the limits of the gas-pipes of the city, 
shall I refuse to pay my tax, because my house and street are not lighted by 
the gas? Shall I pay my part for the Ughting the streets and grudge my part 
for illuminating the mind, to give a good education to the children of all classes? 
Because I never travel shall I refuse to help build the roads? The state may do 
that for an individual which cannot be done in another way. If the state can 
do that which will double its property, it is bound to do it. We are told the 
rich should withdraw their children from the common schools. Now the 
public schools are better, as well as far cheaper, than private schools. But the 
revolutionists say it is dangerous to bring the children of the poor into contact 
with those of the rich, because poverty and immoraUty are generally associated. 
Now I deny this. I affirm that my child is in greater danger of being led into 
temptation by association with the son of affluence, than of humble labor and 
poverty. I believe the morals of children are better guarded in public than in 
private schools. I speak from wide observation as to the influence of the two 
systems upon the morals of the pupil. For the sake of virtue and good char- 
acter, I advocate the training of the children of all classes together in the public 
school." 

DOCUMENT 2 

Platform Adopted by the State Teachers' Association of Connecticut 
IN 1868, AT Meriden, Connecticut 

Foundation laid, 1636. Structure not yet completed, 1867 

1. The State must protect itself against Ignorance. — "Forasmuch as the good 
education of children is of singular behoof and benefit to any commonwealth, 
and whereas many parents and masters are too indulgent and negligent of their 



210 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

duty in that kind," the Selectmen of the town shall have a vigilant eye over their 
brethren and neighbors, to see that none of them suffer in their families, the 
BARBARISM OF IGNORANCE. (See the Connecticut Law from 1650 to 1792.) 
"Intelligence and virtue are the foundations of the republic." 

2. A System of Public Schools Essential. — The education of the Pubhc cannot 
be secured without a well organized and well supported system of Public 
Schools; — private schools, charity schools, parish schools, and endowed schools 
having been proved by the experience of many lands and many years, unequal 
by themselves to the task of instructing all the people, and of training them 
for good institutions and for fraternal life under a Republican Government. 

3. No "Pauper Schools" but "Schools for All." — The Connecticut system, 
now in vogue throughout the land, and advocated by many European states- 
men, provides "Common Schools" that is "Schools for All," without respect 
to creeds, classes, or political parties; and insists that when "good enough for 
the best," these schools are "none too good for the humblest." It knows 
neither caste nor class, rich nor poor, native-born nor foreign-born, Protestant 
nor Roman Catholics, — but only the boys and girls of Connecticut. 

4. Property justly taxed for Education. — The right to tax property for Edu- 
cation has been recognized from the earliest colonial days until now, and it 
rests upon the same principle as the right to lay taxes for any other public 
benefit. 

5. High Schools Important. — A well-arranged system of public schools now 
requires, as tnily as it did in colonial times, that the elementary schools should 
lead to a higher grade of schools, maintained by districts, towns, counties, or 
neighborhoods, — so that the door to higher education may be freely open to 
all who are disposed to enter. 

6. A Normal School Essential. — Teaching is an art which may be imparted 
by experienced teachers to beginners. Institutions for training teachers have 
been found in the most enlightened communities, efficient auxiliaries in the 
support of a good system of Education. Our state should provide such training 
for the teachers in our district schools. 

7. Union of Small and Feeble Districts Recommended. — The Town, being the 
rightful superintendent of the school system of the Town, should avail itself 
of the 'Enabling Act of 1867', to unite the districts, whenever by so doing the 
evils of weak and impoverished school districts can be abolished, and the wealth 
and intelligence of the more favored be brought to bear on the enlightenment 
of the whole community. 

8. The State Board of Education Recommended. — The institution by the 
Legislature of a Board of Education, with a Secretary or Agent, and a public 
office constantly open, designed to promote the improvement of schools in 
every portion of the State, — deserves the commendation and support of all 
friends of Education. 

9. Protection for the Neglected. — Every effort should be put forth to arouse 
public opinion to the reformation of vicious and neglected youth, and to the 
enforcement of laws for preventing truancy and for restricting the improper 
employment of minors in factory work. 

10. Agitation by Organized Effort Needed. — These democratic principles 
having been recently attacked by a few able and persistent enemies of a good 
system of public schools, the friends of education should arouse and organize, 
and by means of public meetings, lectures, sermons, discussions, ne^yspaper 
articles, and all other lawful means of influence, see to it that right principles 
are understood and advocated in every town, village, and school district of the 
State; and that Connecticut becomes again the banner state or popular 
education. 



Appendices 211 

DOCUMENT 3 

Resolutions Adopted by Friends of Universal Education in Connec- 
ticut, 1868. (Kept. Conn. Bd. of Ed., 1868, 122) 

Resolved, — 1. That a Committee of thirteen persons, to be known as a 
"Committee of the Friends of the Pubhc Schools," be designated to represent 
us, as the advocates of a good sy.stem of pubHc instruction, with power to call 
public meetings, prepare and distribute documents, and in general cooperate 
with the State Board of Education and the Secretary of the same, in efforts 
to promote the improvement of C'onnecticut Common Schools. 

2. That an effort be made to raise a sum of money sufficient to defray the 
expenses of public meetings, and to warrant the publication of educational 
tracts and hand-bills. 

3. That at least one address on Public Schools be given in every village and 
neighborhood of the State; and that the committee above referred to secure a 
correspondent in every town, through whom the local arrangements may be 
made for such addresses. 

4. That clergymen, lawyers, teachers, and other public speakers be requested 
to prepare addresses on special educational themes which may be announced 
by the agency of this Committee, and repeated in different places. 

5. That the conductors of the public press be invited to contiriue to lend 
their influence in the promotion of popular education by calling attention to 
educational news, by discussing educational topics, and by reporting school 
addresses and conferences. 

6. That the improvement of schools should not be mixed up with any parti- 
zan or sectarian controversies, and that our hope of progress rests in the en- 
lightenment and arousal of men in all political parties, and in all educational 
denominations. 

DOCUMENT 4 

Petition of the Hartford Ministerial Association to the State Legis- 
lature ABOUT Schools, 1867. (Rept. Conn. Bd. of Ed., 1868, 37-38) 

"To the Oeneral Assembly of the State of Connecticut: 

The undersigned, ministers of Hartford county, represent: We have become 
deeply impressed by the facts which have recently been brought to our atten- 
tion in regard to the present condition of the public schools of Connecticut. 
From the published reports of those who have had the superintendence of these 
schools during the last few years, and from our own i)ersonal observations, we 
have gathered results which fill us with a profound solicitude, and impel us to 
come before you as petitioners. We beg leave to offer a single general state- 
ment. It appears that very large numl)ers of children in the State are being 
suffered to grow up without i)roper education that the statutes which aim to 
secure the benefit of public in.stru(^tion to the i)oor and neglected, are almost 
entirely inoperative; that our public schools are losing their hold upon the 
interest and affections of the i)eople, and are failing of due financial support; 
that the wealthy are withdrawing their patronngc and symjjathy; that by 
consequence of public neglect, the schools throughout the State, with some 
favored exceptions, are tending to a lower standard, in quality of teachers and 
in instruction given. We do therefore earnestly petition that our public school 
system be made the subject of your special consideration; and we offer the 
three following particulars as embracing the substance of our present me- 
morial : — 

1. Believing it to be demanded by the public interest and safety that a 
suitable education be secured to all the children of the State, we pray you that 
the defects of the present laws relating to the education of neglected children 
be remedied. 

2. We ask that all taxation for the support of common schools be henceforth 
on the uniform basis of property, and that the schools be made free. 

3. Being assured that the district system has proved most unfortunate to the 



212 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

cause of general education, we ask you to foster by every means expedient, 
the union of districts under town organizations. 

Your petitioners believe that no matter of public concern has stronger claims 
on your attention than this. Free institutions rest upon popular intelligence. 
Our public school system is the great pledge of civil order and Uberty in the 
future. As we love our State, its democratic forms of law and government, its 
free religious and social Ufe, we should carefully guard that system of pubhc 
instruction by which alone these franchises are guaranteed. We feel that all 
our fellow citizens throughout the State ought to be immediately aroused to 
the great and pressing importance of this subject, and we hail the growing 
indications that such an awakening is at hand. We appeal to you as the chosen 
guardians of the State, to take the lead in the inauguration of measures which 
shall bring the people to rally anew around our public schools, and which shall 
secure a public school education, good and free, to every child within our 
borders." 

This was signed by twenty-six ministers. 

DOCUMENT 5 

Endowed Free Schools 

Address made at the Dedication of the Norwich Free Academy, 1856, by 
John P. Gulliver. 

"The first question was. Are public high schools, supported by taxation, in 
all respects successful? the second. Would endowed free schools remedy their 
defects? the third, On what plan should endowed schools be conducted in order 
to secure success? On these points, either by correspondence or by personal 
interviews, a large number of the leading educators of the country were con- 
sulted. It was ascertained that in all quarters apprehension was beginning 
to be felt in regard to the working of our higher public schools. The lower 
schools up to the grade of the grammar school were well sustained. Men were 
to be found in all our communities who had themselves been educated up to 
that point, and understood, practically, the importance of such schools, in 
suflBcient numbers to control popular sentiment, and secure for them ample 
appropriations and steady support. But the studies of the high school. Alge- 
bra, Geometry, Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, Ancient History, Latin, 
Greek, French and German were a perfect 'terra incognita' to the great mass 
of the people. While the high school was a new thing and while a few en- 
lightened citizens had control of it, in numerous instances it was carried to a 
high state of perfection. But after a time the burden of taxation would begin 
to be felt. Men would discuss the high salaries paid to the accomplished 
teachers, which such schools demand, and would ask 'To what purpose is this 
waste?' Demagogues, keen-scented as wolves, would snuff the prey. 'What 
do we want of a high school to teach rich men's children', they would shout. 
'It is a shame to tax the poor man to pay a man $1,800 to teach children to 
make X's and pot-hooks and gabble parlez-vous's'. The work would go 
bravely on, and on election day, amid great excitement, a new school committee 
would be chosen, in favor of retrenchment and popular rights. In a single 
day the fruits of years of labor would be destroyed. Such occurrences, it was 
ascertained, had already become sufficiently numerous to excite alarm among 
the most intelligent friends of education. Even in communities where the 
high school had been uniformly prosperous, it appeared that the same influence 
was at work and awakened constant apprehension. The proposal to estabhsh 
an endowed high school was regarded with great favor, and a uniform opinion 
was expressed that, properly managed, it would supply all defects in the public 
high school. Indeed the plan, though generally regarded as impracticable, 
was hailed with enthusiasm, as at least a theoretical solution of a very perplex- 
ing problem. The next point was to ascertain the principles which should form 
the basis of such an enterprise. The Putnam School, at Newburyport seemed 
to furnish the best model for imitation. This school had received an endow- 



Appendices 213 

ment of $50,000.00 from Oliver Putnam of Newbury, and was then in success- 
ful operation. One unfortunate error had, however, been committed by its 
founders, in assigning the election of the trustees to the town. A noted polit- 
ical leader, taking advantage of this circumstance, persuaded the people that 
Mr. Putnam's design in founding the school was not so much to raise the stand- 
ard of education, as to relieve the burden of taxation, and proposed that the 
school should be made a substitute for one of the public schools of the town. 
Another salutary caution was given by the experience of the endowed school 
at Colchester. The funds there are under the control of a self -perpetuating 
board of trustees. But the school embraces all departments of instruction 
from the infant school upward. Then it becomes a rival of the common 
schools and depresses rather than elevates them." (Quoted in Brown, Middle 
Schools, 316, from Norwich Courier, Nov. 25, 1856) 

DOCUMENT 6 

Rate-Bills and Free Schools, Barnard and Boutwell, before the American 
Institute of Instruction, 1856, at Springfield (Mass.). 

In speaking of school support, Barnard said: 

"I am aware I am uttering a heresy here, but I do not beUeve that the entire 
expense of the pubUc schools should rest upon the entire community. I will 
go as far as the farthest to advocate the most liberal expense to support pubhc 
schools; but I would always recognize that the duty of educating the child rests 
primarily with the parent and that all modes of regulating the expense of the 
school should be such as to recognize that duty on the part of the parent. I go 
upon the idea which was original in Massachusetts and Connecticut that half 
the expense should rest upon the pubhc, and half upon the parent. There is 
no time to enter upon a comparison between communities which have started 
upon different theories. I know that the experiment of universal education 
can succeed where a portion of that expense rests upon the parent. The best 
education in Europe will be found to exist where the parents contribute to the 
support of schools. / believe it is a great mistake among the friends of education 
in order to make education universal you must make schools free. I beUeve there 
is an error in reference to the word 'free' as originally appUed to schools in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut. The word 'free' so far as I have found from 
an investigation of the school laws of Connecticut, and I beheve of this state, 
means a liberal school, not free to all parents, but one in which the education 
was Uberal. The original free schools in Charlestown, Salem, and Boston had 
reference to the Free Grammar Schools in England. One of the first free gram- 
mar schools, taught by Ezekiel Cheever, was not free in reference to tuition. 
We find he brings a bill against Mr. Trowbridge for the tuition of his child. I 
have looked over the history of free schools as given by Carlyle and Ackerman, 
and I find they are almost all endowed schools. If you look into the free 
schools of this country you find that endowments were made for their support, 
and that individuals were authorized to give and receive money to support 
the schools, following out the idea as it existed in England. Undoubtedly 
they passed off that platform and placed the support of the schools upon prop- 
erty taxation; but it was not until a late period when the entire expense was 
borne by the town. This very practice of boarding round was one in which 
the people contributed to the expense of supporting the school. ... If 
every parent was obhged to pay in advance a small sum for the tuition of his 
child — and I would have it so small that he who could but buy a book could 
pay it — it would do away with a large amount of the non-attendance at school, 
because those parents who had paid would feel that in the absence of their 
children they would lose something that had been paid in." 

"There is a class of small reformatory schools to which aid should be given. 
. . . Mr. Boutwell. — I would ask whether you would require the parents 
of the pupils in these reform schools, not yet guilty of crime, to contribute to 
their support? 



214 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Mr. Barnard. — Certainly. 

Mr. Boutwcll. — On what principle should the public take care of the ele- 
mentary school and not of those schools where it may be doubtful whether the 
children are exposed or not? 

Mr. Barnard. — I say the parent should pay, and not only that, but if he has 
a son in the State Prison he should pay for the support of his child there. I 
hold to parental duty, and that the public must also, in self-preservation, come 
in to support primary schools, reform schools and prisons. 1 do not say there 
are not reasons enough for making the schools free; Md the objection with me is 
that the necessity of looking after the education of the children is one means of 
keeping the interest of the parent alive." 

Boutwell argued against Barnard's stand, as follows: (1) The system might 
work well in some places in Europe, but could not be accepted here. (2) What 
will be done if responsibility is divided between parent and State, and parent 
will not act? (3) Mr. Barnard's doctrine will produce two classes of persons: 
(1) those who pay small tuition and whose children attend school; (2) those 
unable to pay tuition and whose children will not attend school. 

Other points at issue were mentioned but none so important as those above. 
(Am. Jour. Education and Coll. Review, II: 263-273) 

DOCUMENT 7 
John D. Philbrick on Rate-Bills, 1855 

"In section 03 of the Act concerning Education, it is provided that when- 
ever the expense of keeping a common school . . . shall exceed the 
amount of all moneys provided to defray the expenses of such school, the com- 
mittee may examine, adjust, and allow all bills of expense incurred for the 
support of said school, and assess the same upon the parents, guardians and 
masters of such children as attended the same, according to the number and time 
sent by each." I cannot but regard this as the most objectionable feature in 
our school law. I am convinced that the rate-bill system operates most unfa- 
voral)ly upon the interests of our schools. This law makes the amount to be 
paid for each child depend upon the number of days he attends school. Con- 
sequently every day a child is kept out of school there is so much less to pay. 
Upon the children of the poor and the penurious, this arrangement operates 
directly as a premium upon non-attendance. When it is apprehended that 
the rate-bill will be high, in consequence of employing a teacher of higher quah- 
fications, or of keeping the school open for a longer time than usual, many 
cannot or will not send at all, then the burden must fall still more heavily upon 
those who do send and with them the inducement to keep their children out a 
part of the time is proportionately increased. The following cases which came 
to my knowledge, may serve to illustrate the working of the law. A poor 
widow living near one of the best schools in the State, has several children, and 
being unable to kccj) them all in school at the same time for want of means to 
pay the rate-bill, she is compelled to resort to the expedient of sending one at a 
time. In another village, where an excellent graded school has been estab- 
lished, a bright boy was found spending his time in the streets. \Mion asked 
the cause of his wasting his time in idlene-ss, he rey)lied with eyes tilled with 
tears, "1 wish to go to school, but cannot because my father is too poor to 
pay the rate-bill". I have been informed that in those districts where the 
rate-bill has })cen abolished, a marked improvement in the attendance has 
been the result, especially among the (children of foreign parentage, the very 
class which ought to be brought into our public schools. . . ." Mr. 
Philbrick then quotes at length from the Report of Mr. Barnard, in 1839, on 
this matter. He then says " It is now sixteen years since the disastrous opera- 
tion of this law was truthfully portrayed." lie says nothing, however, about 
Mr. Barnard's change of heart over rate-bills. (Conn. Rept., 185.5, 19-22) 

In a circular on school finances, sent to the school visitors (1855), Mr. Phil- 
brick spoke in no uncertain terms, as follows: 



Appendices 215 

"The rate-bill levied on parents in proportion to the attendance of their 
children, operates in many cases very unfavorably on the interests of our 
schools. But no district is compelled to resort to this method of raising the 
means of continuing their school after the public money is expended. A 
property tax may be substituted by a vote of a majority of the legal voters 
which has already been done in several of the districts where some of the best 
schools are now in operation. 

" The Act of the last session making it a duty of towns to raise a one per cent 
tax for support of schools, partially restores the most important and vital ele- 
ment of our school system which was unwisely abolished 34 years ago. The 
voluntary system has been tried for a period of a whole generation and it has 
proved an utter failure. . . . Let the fundamental principle . . . 
that the property of the State should be held subject to taxation for education 
of all the children of the state, be adhered to and acted upon". (Conn. Rept., 
1855, 130-131) 

DOCUMENT 8 

Superintendent Camp on Taxes, Rate-Bills and Free Schools 

Mr. D. N. Camp became superintendent in 1857. In his report for 1858, 
he discusses the question of taxes, rate-bills and free schools. His own words 
show best his arguments: 

"The number of districts which raise by a tax on polls, real estate, and other 
ratable property, a sum sufficient to meet all deficiencies over and above the 
state appropriations, is annually increasing. The schools of several cities 
and manufacturing villages have been free for some years. These schools have 
been in session a longer time, and have been under the charge of better teachers, 
in similar situations. There being no rate-bills to collect, no parent has kept 
his children out of school from inability to pay a bill for tuition. Within the 
past year several agricultural districts have taxed themselves sufficiently to 
make their schools free. In these places there seems to be a strong desire of 
securing thoroughly qualified teachers, and a wilhngness to provide all that is 
necessary for a good school. 

"School visitors and friends of education in different parts of the state have 
expressed a desire, that the general assembly should be requested to make it 
obligatory on all districts of the state to raise by taxation a sum sufficient 
with the state and town appropriations, to secure a good school for at least 
nine months in the year. I am not prepared to recommend this measure. 
While its adoption would contribute to the improvement of schools in propor- 
tion as they should be kept for a longer time by better qualified teachers, it is 
questionable whether it would receive that cordial cooperation from all classes 
which is so important in sustaining good public schools." 

The opposition to a property tax for the support of schools comes principally 
from two classes; first men of wealth who have no children to attend school, 
and who seem to suppose that they have no personal interest in the education 
of the children of others; second, a class found in many communities who are 
themselves ignorant of the condition of schools and of the necessity of abund- 
ant means of their support. These two classes by combination often prevent 
any adequate measures for the improvement of common schools. The present 
law hmits the rate of tuition to $1.00 per term of 12 weeks in all schools not 
graded, and to two dollars for the same time in higher departments of graded 
schools. All expenses, over and above the money received from town and 
State appropriations and this rate of tuition, are now unprovided for by law, 
except by a tax "on the real estate, poll, and other ratable estate of the dis- 
trict". 

"Towns and districts are now authorized by law to levy taxes for the sup- 
port of the common schools without establishing any rate of tuition, so that 
every common school in the state can now be free, if the voters of the town 
and district so decide. . . . It is . . . believed that if the law is 
permitted to remain as it is, and facts in relation to schools and education are 



216 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

brought before the different communities of the State, a change will gradually 
be made, and the support of schools will be provided for, in part at least, by 
a tax on property." (Conn. Rept., 1858, 11-13) 

DOCUMENT 9 
Secretary Northrop on Rate-Bills and P'ree Schools, 1868 

"The greatest hindrance to the improvement of our schools is the Rate-Bill. 
It is wrong in principle and mischievous in practice. It is alike the duty and 
the interest of the State to furnish substantially equal common school privileges 
to the children of all classes. Self-protection is the right and duty of the gov- 
ernment. For this purpose it may maintain armies and navies. But cheaper, 
safer, every way better than forts and fleets, indispensable as they may be, 
better for its peace and security, its prosperity and protection, is universal 
education. 

"The bill in favor of Free Schools, unanimously reported by the Joint Com- 
mittee on Education last year, was referred to the present General Assembly, 
and ordered to be printed with the law. This has led to inquiry and discus- 
sion, and brought the subject prominently before the people. There has been 
a most encouraging advance in public sentiment during the last year. More 
children in Connecticut enjoyed the advantages of free schools during the last 
winter than ever before. The change is remarkable and encouraging as the 
facts will show. 

"In 1852 there were reported but 3 school societies and 17 districts, which 
raised any money for schools by a tax on property, the whole sum thus raised 
at that time did not exceed $10,000. But this has now risen to $616,612.89, the 
increase for the last year being over $200,000. 

"The Reports of my predecessors, and of school visitors coincide in the state- 
ment, that the rate-bill is a most prolific source of alienation, strife and litiga- 
tion. It often breaks up small districts into factions, where the feud grows 
hot in proportion to the fewness of the contestants and the insignificance of 
the matter in dispute. Such neighborhood strifes are rancorous and mis- 
chievous. The public school, as a common interest, instead of alienating, 
should tend to fraternize people, and make the most polyglot village, one com- 
munity, one in interest and sympathy, united in all wise and liberal measures 
for the support and improvement of common schools. A system which so 
often prevents harmony, and tends to endless and fruitless feuds and controver- 
sies, cannot be wise. No rate-bill is legal, unless voted at a district meeting 
called for that purpose, and held before, or during the school year, or within 
three weeks of the close of the year for which the tax is laid. How sure is this 
law to breed trouble, recent facts show. 

" In a certain district, one now refuses to pay his rate-bill because the district 
meeting was not legally called. In another, the tuition bill is refused pay- 
ment, because the district meeting was not held till more than three weeks 
after the close of the term. In another, j)ayment is refused because the com- 
mittee made out a bill without authority from the district, and the time has 
expired in which the district can legally act upon that question. There are 
not a few districts in which school bills are still made out upon the average 
daily attendance though for 12 years this has been illegal. I have examined 
the rate-bills for a school just closed, where deductions were made for every 
day's absence. In one district three-fourths of the rate-bills for the last term 
have been settled without dispute. The payment of the rest is refused, be- 
cause the bills, calculated upon this plan, are made out illegally. Hence, has 
begun a needless controversy, which may long prevent the harmony and co- 
operation essential to the success of the school. I give one more illustration, 
out of many, of the effects of this common but illegal practice, from the Act- 
ing Visitor in . 

'Cases of this kind occur; a school begins prosperously, but some family 
imagines that the tuition bills will be high, or takes offense, and removes 
several children from the school. Other families are alarmed and there is a 



Appendices 217 

panic at once. They see that they are likely to be burdened, and withdraw 
their children, and the school is substantially and perhaps Hterally broken up'. 

"As every day's absence lessens the tuition fee, a premium is ofl'cred on 
irregularity. When, by reason of paying higher wages to a superior teacher or 
the extension of the term, the expense is increased, many withdraw their 
children, and the cost becomes burdensome to the few who remain. . . . 
The objection *I have no children to be educated; let those who have, pay the 
cost of their schooling' is founded on a false theory. The truth is, we belong 
to the State as children belong to their parents, and the State has, for its de- 
fense, a right to us; a right to lay its equal and needful claim on our property, 
our time, our service, and if need be our life. . . . While this claim of the 
State upon us is now more than ever the admitted doctrine of the American 
people, and is the only ground on which the conscription and the national tax 
for a righteous war can be defended, the correlative truth, that the State has 
duties as well as rights and claims, and that foremost among them is the duty 
of securing a good common education to the children of all classes, is the grow- 
ing conviction of the masses. 

"Said a poor widow to me, 'I have just paid a rate-bill of $11.85, for my little 
girl the last year'. ' The law permits but $6.00 a year for each child', I replied. 
'Yes — the tuition was $5.85, and the $6.00 was for board of the teacher, board- 
ing round, as I have no home. Though I can scarcely support myself and child 
by work as a seamstress, I will pinch and toil, and wear my nails off, rather 
than not give that child an education — but indeed it is hard.' She felt and I 
felt that it was worse than hard — it was wrong. I have just learned that the 

present term of the center school in opens without that little girl of 

nine years of age. On inquiry as to the reason of her absence, tears told better 
than words the sad story of stern necessity — the hard struggle of that mother 
on the question 'schooling or bread', 'rate-bill or boardbill'. The ratebill 
keeps hundreds and thousands of children out of school. If this legislature 
should open every school in Connecticut free, I am confident that the Report 
of the Board for the next year after such a law has gone into operation would 
show literally thousands more in attendance." 

"It is said, ample provision is already made for the poor, as their bills may 
be abated. True, if they are wilHng to stand in the attitude of town paupers. 
Ought the honest laborer to be thus humiliated? His pride and self-respect 
revolts at seeing his name recorded among the town indigents. That it is 
regarded as degrading, I have the fullest means of knowing. Said a carpenter 

in , ' I have five children who ought to all be at school, and would be, but 

for the rate-bill, which, at present high prices for everything, I can't pay. So 
far, I have always supported my family, and so long as I can work, I won't beg 
for board or schooling'. Shall not such self-reliance and independence be en- 
couraged? Shall the distinctions of rich and poor be kept up in the school 
room? Shall the sons of penury be sent to a poorer seat in the schoolhouse, 
with the hard and humiliating taunt 'your father don't pay anything for you'. 
Does this poor, discouraged boy, though a better scholar than his paying school- 
mate, deserve to be told 'that is good enough for you?' The theory of pauper 
schools is not new. In the States of Virginia and South Carolina, long ago, a 
school system was established for the indigent only, and 'the pride and self- 
respect of the really poor revolted against such a discrimination. The schools 
were comparatively worthless, were unattended and the systeni failed', as it 
surely would if revived in Connecticut. My work leads me to mingle with the 
masses, and increasing familiarity enhances my appreciation of the sterling 
common sense, the sound judgment and honesty of the common people, the 
industrious classes. I find among them manifold signs of an advancing public 
sentiment in behalf of free schools, a growing conviction that general education 
is the heritage of the people, alike their interest and their right, the source of 
individual thrift, success and virtue, of public safety and permanent prosperity. 
Mechanics and laborers now understand that the wealth of the State consists 
in its men, in its treasures of mind. True men are worth more than money. 
. . . Connecticut cannot afford to cripple her schools with the rate-bills." 
(Conn. Rept., 1868, 38-71) 



218 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

DOCUMENT 10 

Free Education as Charity 

Stonington (Conn.) Visitor on this conception. 

"That the common schools of our State were designed by their founders to 
be schools where all the children should be generally educated, must be evident 
to everyone who is acquainted with their history. They were not established 
for any particular class, but for all, without distinction of sex, or condition, 
wealth or poverty (?). They were not designed more for the poor than the rich, for 
the sons and daughters of patrician families than of plebian. All such distinctions 
are not only contrary to the genius of republican institutions, but detrimental 
to the whole system of common schools. . . . The invidious distinction 
now attempted to be made, — that the common school is only for the poor who 
are unable to secure knowledge elsewhere, — is slanderous to those principles 
upon which the whole system of common schools is founded, and should be 
indignantly repudiated. . . . The poor and ignorant classes are not more 
dependent on the rich and learned than the rich and learned are upon them, 
and unless the one can elevate the other, the other will most certainly degrade 
the one. . . . That caste system of education, which seeks to elevate the 
few and degrade the many, stands opposed to progress, civilization and Chris- 
tianity." (Conn. Rept., 1868, Appendix, CIII-CIV) 

DOCUMENT 11 
Secretary Northrop on Charity in Education 

" Much has been said in Connecticut during the last year in favor of main- 
taining public schools exclusively for the poor. There is little danger that our 
legislation will favor those distinctions of caste and aristocracy which have 
long been the bane of English society. This caste system has been tried on a 
wide scale and under varying circumstances, and the results nowhere recom- 
mend it. Pennsylvania thoroughly tried 'pauper schools'. The result was 
poor houses, poorer teachers, and poorest schools. To attend them was a 
disgrace. Even the poor washerwoman scorned to send her children to the 
pauper school, proudly saying 'I haven't come to that — indeed I haven't'. 
Virginia tried the plan of pauper schools, and therefore never had a general 
operative public school system. Her farseeing statesman, Thomas Jefferson, 
prepared with his own hand a bill for a free school system, of which he said: 
'One provision of the school bill for all children generally, rich or poor, was 
that the expenses of these schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the 
County, in proportion to their general tax rates'. How different would have 
been the history of the Old Dominion had she heeded his counsel. But the 
long trial of pauper schools has, in the end, made poor indeed, that State, so 
rich in natural resources. . . . 

"Instead of Jefferson's bill for free schools, quite another sentiment became 
popular, as thus expressed in a leading Virginia paper: 'We have got to hating 
everything with the prefix free, from free negroes down and up through the 
whole catalogue, free farms, free labor, free society, free will, free thinking, 
free children and free schools, — all belonging to the same damnable brood of 
sins. But the worst of all these abominations is the modern system of free 
schools. The New England system of free schools has been the cause and pro- 
lific source of the infidelities and treasons that have turned her cities into 
Sodoms and Gomorrahs and her land into the common nestling places of 
howling Bedlamites. We abominate the system because the schools are free'. 

"South Carolina adopted pauper schools, and of their results Gov. Hammond, 
in 1843, spoke thus: 'Our free school system has failed. It does not suit our 
people or our government. The paupers for whose children it is intended but 
slightly appreciate the advantages of education; their pride revolts at the idea 
of sending their children to school as poor scholars, and besides, they need them 
at home to work'. Just before the war. South Carolina had learned the folly 
of schools for the poor alone, and was inaugurating a system of free schools for 
all classes of her white population." (Conn. Rept., 1868, 135-138) 



Appendices 219 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON MICHIGAN 

Sources 

1. Laws of the Northwest Territory, of the Territory of Michigan, and of the 

State of Michigan, 1785-1914. 

2. Journals of the Constitutional Conventions. 

(a) 1835-7. (b) 1850. (c) 1868. (d) Constitutional Commission of 
1873. (e) 1907. 

3. Journals of Legislative Proceedings. 

4. Reports of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

5. State and Federal Census Reports. 

Secondary Accounts and Material 

1. Michigan Pioneer Collections. Vol. I: 37-46.* IV: 57-63.* V: 27-43, 

43-46, 184-187,* 547-557.* VI: 25, 115-137, 137-166, 284-90, 200- 
1,* 245,* 294,* 325.* VII: 17-36,* 36-52, 130. IX: 321-326,* 326- 
328,* 92-100,* 328-330. X: 24-33.* XIII: 571-575. XIV: 280- 
283,*283-402.* XVII: 462-474, 311-319.* XVIII: 374,* 397,* 
415, 561-570,* 660. XXII: 454^57.* XXVI: 501-517. XXVIII: 
107-110.* XXX: 524-549. XXXII: 452. XXXV: 295-309.* 
XXXVIII: 522-534. 
♦Starred references contain material about primary and secondary schools. 

2. Histories of Michigan and histories in general. 

(a) Sheldon, E. M., Early History of Michigan, New York, A. S. Barnea 
and Co., 1856. 

(b) Cooley, T. M., Michigan, Am. Com. Series, Houghton Mifflin. 

(c) Fuller, G. N., Economic and Social Beginnings of Michigan, Vol. I, 
University Series, Michigan Historical Publications. 

(d Mathews, Lois K., The Expansion of New England, Chap. IX. 
(e) Cook, W., The Government of Michigan. 

3. Histories of Education. 

(a) McLaughlin, History of Higher Education in Michigan, Circular of 
Information, No. 4, 1891, U. S. Bureau of Education. 

(b) Putnam, Daniel, Development of Primary and Secondary PubUc 
Education in Michigan (1904). 

(c) Shearman, Francis W., System of Public Instruction and Primary 
School Law of Michigan, Part I, 1852). 

(d) Smith, W. L., Historical Sketches of Education in Michigan, 1-38 
(1881). 

(e) Winters, Schools of Detroit, Detroit School Report, 1870-72. 

(f) Gregory, J. M., School Funds and School Laws of Michigan. (1859) 

(g) Brown, S. W., The Secularization of American Education, New York, 
Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 49. 

(h) Knight, G. W., History and Management of Land Grants for Edu- 
cation in the Northwest Territory, 37-39, 87-103, 136-144. 
(i) Davis, C. O., Public Secondary Education. 



22Q Development of Free Schools in the United States 

4. Barnard's American Journal of Edtication, and Annual Reports, U. S. Com- 
missioner of Education. 

(a) Barnard's Journal. 17:100. 24:279 (legal provisions concerning 
education). 24: 164 (land grants). 15: 640 (biography). 

(b) Report, U. S. Commissioner of Education. 
1892-3, 2: 1225 et seq. (Document, Hinsdale). 
1897-98, 1:591 et seq. (Foreign Influences, Hinsdale). 
1894-95, 2: 1513-50 (Education in Northwest Territory, Mayo). 
1898-99, 1: 389-413 (Common Schools, Michigan, Mayo). 
1876, 200-2 (History of School System). 

(Index of Reports of Commissioner give further references to various phases 
of education in Michigan.) 

Periodicals 

1. Michigan Teacher, 

2. Michigan Journal of Education and Teachers Magazine, Vol. 1-7, 1853- 

1860. 

3. Education, Vol. V:12. Salmon, L. M., Education in Michigan in Terri- 

torial Period. 

Biographies 

1. Hoyt and Ford, John D. Pierce, Founder of the Michigan School System. 

2. Hinsdale, Horace Mann. 

3. Hubbel, Horace Mann. 

MICHIGAN 
TABLE I 



Year 


Amount Paid 
Teachers 


Amount of 
Rate-Bills 


Rate-Bills in 

Per Cent of 

Total Salaries 


Gain or Lose 
in Rate-Bills 


Districts 


Free 
Districts 


1846 




$26,558.71 










1847 




30,877.37 










1848 




30,402 . 06 










1849 


$50,312.36 


29,717.88 


59.6 




3,075 




1850 


80,000.00 


32,318.75 


40.4 


$2,600.87 


3,097 




1851 




69,085.37 




36.766.62 


3,307 




1852 


125.063.62 


37,833.36 


32.5 




3,383 




1853 




44,099.58 






3,410 




1854 




63,763.43 






3,465 




1865 


295,231.29 


83,932 . 84 


28.4 




3,514 




1856 


353,077.76 


100,009.49 


28.3 


10.076.65 


3,525 




1857 


423,129.22 


121.651.14 


28.7 


21.641.49 


3,748 




1858 


442,227.37 


118,099.37 


26.7 


3.551. 77L 


3,946 




1859 


435,321.27 


104,689.20 


24.1 


13,230. 17L 


3,968 




1860 


467,286.50 


67,484.50 


14.4 


37,394. OOL 


4,087 


1.785 


1861 


500,053 . 66 


56,469.29 


11.2 


10,915. 21L 


4,203 


2,199 


1862 


491,293.57 


43,202.76 


8.7 


13.266. 53L 


4,268 


2,364 


1863 


518,002.57 


41,200.54 


7.8 


2.002. 22L 


4,375 


2.635 


1864 


579,108.60 


50,080.16 


8.6 


8,879.62 


4,426 


2,662 


1865 


695,028.65 


90,232.70 


12.9 


40.152.54 


4.474 




1866 


791,756.89 


103.151.07 


13.2 


12.918.37 


4,625 




1867 


908,289.50 


107,170.91 


11.7 


4,019.84 


4,744 




1868 


1,026,019.94 


110,886.26 


10.8 


3.715.35 


4,855 




1869 


1,159,460.86 


94,752.55 


8.1 


16.133. 71L 


5,052 





Note.' 
bills. 



-Data compiled from various Michigan reports. L signifies loss, or decrease in rate- 



Appendices 



221 



TABLE II 

Population and Social Statistics 



Year 


Totals 


Whites 


Slaves 


Free Colored 


Aliens 


1810 


4,762 


4,168 


24 


120 




1820 


8,896 


8,591 




305 


656 


1830 


31,639 


31,346 


32 


261 


1,497 


1840 


212,267 










1850 


397,654 






2,583 




1853* 


509,374 






3,336 




1860 


749,113 










1870 


1,184,059 











♦Data from state census for this year. 

Illiteracy — Persons Twenty Years of Age or Older 



Year 


Native 


Alien 


White 


Colored 


1840 
1850 
1860 


5,272 
8,170 


3,009 
10,315 


2,173 

7,912 

17,441 


122 

369 

1,044 


Vocations op Inhabitants of Michigan 


Year 


All Vocations 


Agricultural 


Manufacturing 


1840 
1850 
1853* 
1860 


108,978 
236,987 


56,521 
79,452 

124,541 


6,890 

5,768 
22,827 



♦Data from state census. 

Nativity for Population of Michigan for Year of 1850 



Me. 


1,117 


N. Y. 


133,756 


N. and S 


C.393 


Mich. 140,648 


N. H. 


2,744 


N.J. 


5,572 


Ky. 


402 




Vt. 


11,113 


Penn. 


9,542 


Ohio 


14,677 


Average for other states 


Mass. 


8,167 


Dela. 


368 


Ind. 


2,003 


and territories equals 


R. I. 


1,031 


Md. 


537 


111. 


496 


44 


Conn. 


6,751 


Va. 


1,504 


Wis. 


332 





Nativity of Population of Michigan for Year of 1860 



Me. 


2,214 


R. I. 


1,122 


N. Y. 


191,123 


Ky. 


1,054 


N. H. 


3,482 


Conn. 


7,636 


Dela. 


515 


Ohio 


34,235 


Vt. 


13,779 


N.J. 


7,531 


Md. 


710 


Ind. 


4,482 


Mass. 


9,873 


Penn. 


17,460 


Va. 


2,176 


111. 


2,167 


Wis. 


1,908 















Foreign, 149,092; Michigan, 294,828; United States, 600,021 



222 Development of Free Schools in the United States 



TABLE III 
Items of School Support 



Year 


District Tax 


Township Tax 


Total School Support 


1840 


$59,120 




$78,338 


1841 


54,640 




65,430 


1842 


58,259 


$1,120 


74,869 


1843 


44,705 


1,697 


65,695 


1844 


5S,021 


2,084 


86,182 


1845 


59,931 


5,521 


87,690 


1846 


92,854 


6, ,579 


154,924 


1847 


94,495 


7,368 


158.151 


1848 


103,852 


15,020 


185,172 


1849 


124,890 


17,830 


213,744 


1850 


128,189 


17,957 


217,206 


1851 


130,196 


17,140 


269,265 


1852 


114,675 


30,009 


287,551 


1853 


129,476 


48,672 


297,512 


1854 


156,916 


67,179 


366,506 


1865 


232,134 


83,961 


499,967 


1856 


240,803 


91,780 


447,905 


1857 


304,572 


102,519 


536,071 


1858 


316,580 


116,362 


551.042 


1859 


246,247 


129,524 


599.819 


1860 


292,924 


262, 130 


659.949 


1861 


329,463 


267,813 


754,710 


1862 


245.813 


248,934 


745,253 


1863 


233,125 


265,656 


827,625 


1864 


364,246 


250,380 


955,077 


1865 


473,908 


281,770 


1,237,514 


1866 


634,088 


288,820 


1,573,354 


1867 


874,304 


289,976 


1,985,411 


1868 


1,070,561 


309,219 


2,478,532 


1869 


1,308,618 


323,246 


2.759.096 


1870 


1,742,578 


405,111 


3.271.299 


1871 


1,749,407 


409,541 


3,330.972 


1872 


1,977,759 


421,971 


3,650,058 


1873 


2,095,220 


465,912 


3,729,648 


1874 


2,393,604 


466,085 


4,094,775 



(Compiled from Michigan School Reports, mainly from the Report for 1880 and from Smith's 
Education in Michigan.) 



Appendices 



223 



TABLE IV 
Teachers' Salaries for Years Reported (Per Month) 



Year 


Men 


Women 


Year 


Men 


Women 


1845 


$11.98 


$5.24 


1867 


$44.03 


$19.48 


1846 


12.71 


5.36 


1868 


47.78 


21.92 


1847 


12.87 


5.74 


1809 


47.71 


24.55 


1848 


13.71 


5.97 


1870 


52.62 


27.31 


1849 


14.14 


6.46 


1871 


49.92 


27.71 


1863 


28.17 


12.44 


1872 


49.11 


26.72 


1864 


34.00 


16.63 


1873 


51.94 


27.13 


1865 


41.77 


17.54 


1874 


52.45 


27.01 


1866 


43.53 


18.44 









(Compiled from Michigan School Reports, mainly from the Report for 1880.) 



TABLE V 

Income from the Public School Funds of Michigan 

(Smith, Educationin Michigan, p. 20) 



Year 


Rate per Child 


Total 


Year 


Rate per Child 


Total 


1839 




$20,248.96 


1860 


$.46 


$108,823.62 


1840 




19,217.68 


1861 


.46 


103,457.31 


1841 




10.789.36 


1862 


.50 


126,464.16 


1842 


$.32 


15,489.92 


1863 


.50 


130,978.50 


1843 


.37 


19,292.17 


1864 


.50 


136,362.00 


1844 


.42 


28,076.06 


1865 


.48 


134,634.42 


1845 


.28 


22,237.34 


1866 


.46 


136,550.00 


1846 


.31 


27,925.72 


1867 


.45 


143,787.59 


1847 


.32 


31,272.74 


1868 


.45 


151,630.50 


1848 


.30 


32,605.20 


1869 


.47 


165,651.27 


1849 


.33 


39,057.67 


1870 


.48 


179,483.16 


1850 


.34 


42,794.44 


1871 


.49 


186,485.24 


1851 


.34 


46,824.80 


1872 


.48 


186,915.84 


1852 


.40 


57,559.60 


1873 


.49 


196,613.60 


1853 


.36 


54,033.18 


1874 


.50 


208,935.06 


1854 


.45 


72,537.75 


1875 


.50 


217,499.06 


1855 


.48 


83,242.08 


1876 


.50 


223,969.00 


1856 


.53 


99,925.52 


1877 


.46 


211,055.56 


1857 


.53 


107,170.37 


1878 


.50 


234,499.57 


1858 


.50 


107,569.89 


1879 


.48 


227,565.20 


1859 


.465 


105,706.07 


1880 


.47 


226,954 . 60 



Grand total from 1839 to 1880, $4,681,893.78 



224 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

TABLE VI 
School Attendance in Public and Private Schools in Michigan 



Year 



Public School 



Eetimated Private School 



1836 
1837 
1838 
1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1843 
1844 
1846 
1846 
1^47 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
1856 
1857 
1858 
1859 
1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 
1873 
1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 



2,377 

6,943 

28,764 

44,067 

47,901 

51,254 

56,173 

55,555 

70,277 

75,770 

77,807 

88,080 

98,044 

102,871 

110,478 

115,165 

103,266 

113,792 

129,517 

142,307 

153,116 

162,936 

173,594 

183,759 

193,107 

202,504 

207,332 

216,144 

215,736 

228,629 

246,957 

243,161 

250,966 

269,587 

278,686 

297,466 

303,534 

307,014 

327,506 

343,931 

346,096 

357,139 

359,702 

342,138 

362,196 



4,708 

4,279 

6,276 

8,320 

10,703 

11,917 

3,807 

9,613 

8,772 

8,189 

6,761 

6,845 

7,934 

8,033 

8,968 

10,634 

18,253 

18,854 



(Smith, Education in Michigan, p. 31) 



Appendices 



225 



DOCUMENT A 
Michigan — Rate-Bill Documents: Teacher's TxnTioN List 

Statute: " ... the teacher shall keep a list of all scholars attending 
school, the number of days each scholar shall attend the same, with the age of 
each, and the name of the person Uable for the tuition of each, according to hia 
best information and belief, which list he shall return to the director. . . ." 

Form of List : List containing the names of the children between the ages of 

four and eighteen years, belonging to district No , of the township 

of , taken by the director previous to the annual district meeting for 

the year 

Dated, day of , 1850. 

A B , Director. 







Whole no. 


Name of person liable 


Names of children between 


Time of 


of days 


for tuition of each 


4 and 18 years of age. 


entrance. 


attend, 
of each. 


scholar. 


A B 


Jan. 1, 
1850. 


90. 


B H 


C D 


Jan. 9, 
1850. 


75. 


G N 


E F 


Feb. 1, 
1850. 


45. 


F M 


Name and age of each scholar 








in attendance, and not in 








the list furnished by di- 








rector. 








A B 19 yr. 


Jan. 2, 
1850. 


70. 


E F 


X Y 15 yr. 


Jan. 8, 
1850 


55. 


L B 



I hereby certify and return the foregoing as a true statement of the facts 
contained therein, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the list of 
names hable for tuition of each scholar is correct. 

John Smith, Teacher. 

(Shearman, Public Instruction and School Law, 365-366) 



DOCUMENT B 

Rate-Bill and Warrant for Collection as Used in Michigan 

(Gregory, J. M., School Funds and School Laws of Michigan, 1859, pp. 290- 
293. Reference also includes "Form of assessor's sale of property of those 
who refused to pay rate and assessor's return of warrant.") 

Form of Rate-BUl and Warrant. 

Rate-BiU containing the name of each person hable for teachers' wages in 

District No , in the township of , for the term ending 

on day of , A.D. 18. . , and the amount for which each 

person not exempted from the payment thereof is so liable, with the fees of the 
assessor thereon. 



226 Development of Free Schools in the United States 



Names of inluihi- 
tanta sending 
to school 


Whole no. 
of days 

sent 


Amount of 
school bill 


Assessor's 

fees 

thereon 


Amount 
for fuel 


Whole 
amount to 
be raised 


James Emerson 


104 


$1.04 


$.05 


* 


$1.09 


John L. Barney 


416 


4.16 


.21 


$1.25 


5.62 


Wilham Jones 


313 


3.13 


.16 


* 


3.29 


Peter Parley 


54 


.54 


.03 


« 


.57 


S. C. Goodrich 


104 


1.04 


.05 


.50 


1.59 


M. Barney 


104 


1.04 


.05 


* 


1.09 


F. Sawyer 


416 


4.16 


.21 


* 


4.37 



♦ Exemption from fuel bill because fuel was furnished to school. 

Warrant . 

You are hereby commanded to collect from each of the persons in the an- 
nexed rate-bill named, the several sums set opposite their resi)cctive names in 
the last colunm thereof, and within sixty days after receiving this warrant, to 
pay over the amount so collected by you (retaining five per cent, for your fees) 
to the order of the Director of said District, coimtersigned l)y the Moderator; 
and in case any iK>rson named therein, shall neglect or refuse, on demand, to 
pay the amount set opposite his name as aforesaid, you are to collect the same 
by distress and sale of goods and chattels of such persons wherever found, 
witliin the county or counties in which said District is situated, having first 
published said sale at least ten days, by posting up notices thereof in three 
public i>laces in the townships where such pro{)erty shall be sold. 

At the expiration of this warrant, you will make a return thereof in writing, 
with the rate-bill attached, to the Director; stating the amount collected on said 
rate-bill, the amount uncollected, and the names of the persons from whom 
collections have not been made. 

Given under our hands this day of , in the year of 

our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and 

A. B., Director 
C. D., Moderator. 



DOCUMENTS C AND D 

C. — Michigan — Rate-Bill Documents: Notice of Assessor's Sale of 
PuoPEKTY Levied on for Collection of Rate-Bill 

Notice is hereby given, that by virtue of the warrant annexed to a rate-bill 

for school district No , of the township of , bearing date 

of the day of , 1850, I have levied on the goods and 

chattels of , and shall expose the same for sale at public 

auction at the house of , in the said school district, (or 

wherever the property may be) in the township of and county of 

, on the day of , 1850, at the hour of 

o'clock, in the forenoon of said day. 

Given under my hand and seal at , this day of » 

1850. 

A B 

Assessor of said District. 

(Shearman, Public Instruction and School Law, 370) 



Appendices 227 

D. — Collector's Warrant for Collection of Rate-Bill 

County of ss. 

To collector of the district, in the town of 

in the county aforesaid, greeting: In the name of the United States of America, 
you are hereby required and commanded to collect from each of the inhabi- 
tants of said district, the several sums of money written opposite the names of 

each of the said inhabitants, in the annexed tax list, and within 

days after receiving this warrant, to pay the amount of the money by you col- 
lected, into the hands of the trustees of said district, or some one of them, and 
to take their or his receipt therefor. And if any one or more inhabitant shall 
neglect or refuse to pay the sums, you are hereby further commanded to levy 
on the goods and chattels of each delinquent, and make sale thereof, according 

to law. Given under our hands and seals, this day of 

182 .. . 



(Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. II. 472. Pub. 1874) 

DOCUMENT E 

Michigan — Sectarian Definition of Free Schools 
Memorial to the Legislature relative to a division of the School Fund 

We, the undersigned, citizens of Michigan, respectfully represent to your 
Honorable Body, that we have labored, and are still laboring under grievances 
to which neither Justice nor Patriotism require longer submission on our part, 
without an effort for their removal. 

We, your petitioners, wish to represent to your Honorable Body, that not- 
withstanding the Constitution guarantees liberty of conscience to every 
citizen of the State, yet our Public School laws, compel us to violate our con- 
science, or deprive us unjustly of our share of the Public School Funds, and 
also impose on us taxes for the support of schools, which, as a matter of con- 
science, we cannot allow our children to attend. 

To convince your Honorable Body of the magnitude of these grievances, we 
have but to refer you to the fact, that in the cities of Monroe and Detroit alone, 
there are educated at the expense of their parents, and charitable contributions, 
some 2500 of our children. Your petitioners might bear longer their present 
grievances, hoping that our fellow-citizens would soon discover the injustice 
done to us by the present School laws, and that the love of pul)lic justice for 
which they are distinguished, would prompt them to protest against laws which 
are .self-evidently a violation of liberty of conscience, a liberty which is equally 
dear to every American citizen; but as the new Constitution requires that free 
schools l>e estal)lished in every district of our State, and as the present Legis- 
lature will be called upon to act upon the subject, your petitioners consider 
that their duty to themselves, their duty to their children, and their duty to 
their country, the liberties of which they are morally and religiously bound to 
defend, as well as their duty to their God, require that they apf)rise your Hon- 
orable Body of tli(! oppressive nature of our i)resent School laws, the injustice 
of which is equalled only by the laws of England, which compel the people of 
all denominations to support a church, the doctrines of which they do not be- 
lieve. 

Your petitioners would not wish to be understood as being opposed to edu- 
cation; on the contrary they are i)repared to V)ear every reasonable burden your 
Honorable Body are willing to impose on them, to promote the cause of edu- 
cation, providing that our schools be free indeed. But they do not consider 
schools free lohen the law imposes on parents the necessity of giving their children 
such an education as their conscience cannot approve of. But that your Honorable 



228 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

Body may not be ignorant of what they understand by free schools, your petitioners 
wish to say that in their opinions, schools can be free only, when the business of 
school teaching be placed on the same legal footing as the other learned professions, 
when all may teach who will, their success depending as in other cases, on their 
fitness for their profession, and the satisfaction that they may render to the public; 
that in all cases the parent be left free to choose the teacher to whom he will entrust 
the education of his child, as he is left to choose his physician, his lawyer, etc; that 
each person teaching any public school in the State should be entitled to draw from 
the public school fund, such sums as the law might provide for every child so taught 
by the month, quarter, or otherwise, on producing such evidence as the law might 
require in such cases. Schools established on such principles are what your 
petitioners understand by free schools. 

Your petitioners, therefore, respectfully urge that the pubUc school system for 
our State, be basecl on these broad democratic principles of equal hberty to all, 
allowing freedom of conscience to the child, who also has a conscience, as well 
as to the instructor and parent. And your petitioners will ever pray. 

Note. — While there are no signatures shown, or the denomination here 
indicated, the history of the schools of Detroit shows that this petition came 
from the Catholics of that city. Italics not in original. 

(Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1853, 190-191) 

DOCUMENT F 

Counter Petition of Protestant Episcopal Bishop on Division of 

School Funds 

"The undersigned is the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
Diocese of Michigan: He has learned from the pubhc newspapers, and from 
petitions about to be presented to your Honorable bodies, that an application 
is to be made for a division of the school fund of this State, so that ' in all cases 
the parent be left free to choose the teacher to whom he will entrust the educa- 
tion of his child.' Such apphcation (if granted) he considers as giving the 
right not only to parents but to every religious body, to select teachers who 
will teach the peculiarities of the religious views of opinions they may hold. 
It will place the school fund of this State in the Hands of religious bodies or 
8e(!ts, and entrust to them the education of the children of the State; for the 
right, if given to one, will be claimed by each and all. Whatever opinion the 
writer may entertain in reference to the system and effects of the common 
school education, he begs leave to say, that he has no wish or desire to interfere 
with, or in any way alter, or abridge the system which has been the pride of the 
State, and which has furnished to so many thousands of her children the means 
of obtaining a high secular education; nor does he wish that the fvmd so gen- 
erously granted to the people of the State, and so carefully guarded by her 
Legislature, and so highly prized by her citizens, should be used for the promo- 
tion of sectarian strife and bitterness. 

It is one of the distinguishing features of our free institutions, and which 
lies at the foundation of happiness and freedom of the people, that neither relig- 
ious tests nor religious preferences form any part of our legislation. All 
rehgious bodies are placed in precisely the same footing, and whatever may be 
the exclusive claims of each and all, they can be settled only by an appeal 
to a higher and different authority than State legislatures. But if your 
Honorable bodies see fit to overturn and destroy that system which has been 
heretofore so carefully guarded, and which has introduced into every occupa- 
tion and profession, some of the most distinguished men of the State, and 
which has l)rought to the door of the poor man the means of educating his 
children; and if the Priests and Clergymen of every religious body are to take 
the place of the common school teacher, and the State is to assume the duty, 
through them, of extending and building up religious differences, and of fo- 
menting strife and contention, then, the undersigned, (most reluctantly) would 



Appendices 229 

claim to have a share in this work. If then such a change is to be made in our 
common school law, so as to allow parents to choose teachers for their children, 
the undersigned would respectfully ask for his proportion of the common school 
fund, so that the people entrusted to his spiritual oversight may employ such 
teachers as will fully carry out their religious preferences. He would freely 
and frankly state to your honorable bodies that the amount thus granted, shall 
be carefully used in teaching the principles and doctrines of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, and that the services of as many clergymen and laymen of 
the Church will be secured and used, so that no other prmciples and doctrines 
shall find any place in the different schools." — Samuel A. McCoskry, Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Michigan. Detroit, Jan, 
19th, 1853. 

(Report on Public Instruction in Michigan, 1853, 205) 

The reports of the Legislative Committees on the proposed bill relating to 
the division of the school fund are found in the same report of the Superintend- 
ent of Public Instruction, 1853, as follows: 

1. Report of Senate Committee, pp. 191-193; 

2. Majority Report of the House Committee, pp. 193-195; 

3. Minority Report of the House Committee, 195-200. 



DOCUMENT G 
Decision in Kalamazoo High School Case, July 21, 1874 

The bill in this case is filed to restrain the collection of such portion of the 
school taxes assessed against complainants for the year 1872 as have been 
voted for the support of the high school in that village and for the payment of 
the salary of the superintendent. While, nominally, this is the end sought to 
be attained by the bill, the real purpose of the suit is wider and vastly more 
comprehensive than this brief statement would indicate, inasmuch as it seeks 
a judicial determination of the right of school authorities, in what are called 
union school districts of the State, to levy taxes upon the general public for the 
support of what are known in this State as high schools, and to make free by 
such taxation the instruction of children in other languages than English. 
The bill is, consequently, of no small interest to all the people of the State, 
and to a large number of very flourishing schools it is of the very highest in- 
terest, as their prosperity and usefulness, in a large degree, depend upon the 
method by which they are supported, so that a blow at this method seems a 
blow at the schools themselves. The suit, however, is not to be regarded as a 
blow purposely aimed at the schools. It can never be unimportant to know 
that taxation for the most useful or indispensable purposes, is warranted by 
the strict letter of the law; and whoever doubts its being so in any particular 
case, may be well justified by his doubts in asking a legal investigation, that, 
if errors or defects in the law are found to exist, there may be a review of the 
subject in legislation, and the whole matter be settled on legal grounds, in such 
manner and on such principles as the public will may indicate, and as the 
legislature may prescribe. 

The complainants rely upon two objections to the taxes in question, one of 
which is general, and the other appUes only to the authority or action of thia 
particular district. The general objection has been already indicated; the 
particular objection is, that, even conceding that other districts in the State 
may have authority under special charters or laws, or by the adoption of 
general statutes, to levy taxes for the support of high schools in which foreign 
and dead lang^uages shall be taught, yet this district has no such power, be- 
cause the special legislation for its benefit, which was had in 1850, was invalid 
for want of compliance with the constitution in the forms of enactment, and it 
has never adopted the general law (Compiled laws, 3742), by taking a vote of 
the district to estabUsh a union school in accordance with its provisions, 
though ever since that law was enacted the district has sustained such a school, 

16 



230 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

iand proceeded in its action apparently on the assumption that the statutes in 
all respects were constitutional enactments, and had been compiled with. 

Whether this particular objection would have been worthy of serious con- 
sideration had it been made sooner, we must, after this lapse of time, wholly 
decline to consider. This district existed de facto, and we suppose dejure, also, 
for we are not informed to the contrary, when the legislation of 1859 was had, 
and from that time to the present it has assumed to possess and exercise all the 
franchises which are now brought in question, and there has since been a 
steady concurrence of action on the part of its people in the election of officers, 
in the levy of large taxes, and in the employment of teachers for the support of 
a high school. The State has acquiesced in this assumption of authority, and 
it has never, so far as we are advised, been questioned by anyone, until, after 
thirteen years' user, three individual taxpayers, out of some thousands, in a 
suit instituted on their own behaK, and to which the public authorities give 
no countenance, come forward in this collateral manner and ask us to annul 
the franchises. To require a municipal corporation, after so long an acquies- 
cence, to defend, in a merely private suit, the irregularity not only of its own 
action, but even of the legislation that permitted such action to be had, could 
not be justified by the principles of law, much less by those of public poUcy. 
We may justly take cognizance in these cases of the notorious fact that munic- 
ipal action is often exceedingly informal and irregular, when, after all, no 
wrong or illegality has been intended, and the real purpose of the law has been 
had in view and been accomplished; so that it may be said the spirit of the law 
has been kept while the letter has been disregarded. We may also find in the 
statutes many instances of careless legislation under which municipalities have 
acted for many years, until important interests have sprung up, which might 
be crippled or destroyed, if then for the first time matters of form in legislative 
action were suffered to be questioned. If every municipality must be subject 
to be called into court at any time to defend its original organization and its 
franchises at the will of any dissatisfied citizen who may feel disposed to ques- 
tion them, and subject to dissolution, perhaps, or to be crippled in authority 
and powers if defects appear, however complete and formal may have been the 
recognition of its rights and privileges, on the part alike of the State and its 
citizens, it may very justly be said that few of our municipalities can be en- 
tirely certain of the ground they stand upon, and that any single person, how- 
ever honestly inclined, if disposed to be litigious, or over technical and precise, 
may have it in his power in many cases to cause infinite trouble, embarrass- 
ment, and mischief. 

It was remarked by Mr. Justice Campbell in People v. Maynard, 15 Mich., 
470, that "in public affairs where the people have organized themselves under 
color of law into the ordinary municipal bodies, and have gone on year after 
year raising taxes, making improvements, and exercising their usual fran- 
■ chises, their rights are properly regarded as dependent quite as much on the 
acquiescence as on the regularity of their origin, and no ex post facto inquiry can 
he permitted to undo their corporate existence. Whatever may be the rights of 
individuals before such general acquiescence, the corporate standing of the 
community can no longer be open to question." To this doctrine were cited 
Rumsey v. People 19 N. Y., 41, and Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N. Y., 447. The 
cases of State v. Bunker, 59 Me., 366; People v. Salomon, '81 111., 41, and People 
v. Lothrop, 24 Mich., 235, are in the same direction. The legislature has 
recognized this principle with special reference to school districts, and has not 
only deemed it important that their power should not be questioned after any 
considerable lapse of time, but has even established what is in effect a very 
short act of limitation for the purpose of declaring that "Every school district 
shall, in all cases, be presumed to have been legally organized, when it shall 
have exercised the franchises and privileges of a district for the term of two 
years." (Comp. L., 1871, 3591) This is wise legislation, and short as the 
period is, we have held that even a less period is sufficient to justify us in re- 
fusing to interfere except on the application of the State itself. (School District 
V. Joint Board, Etc., 27 Mich., 3) 



Appendices 231 

It may be said that this doctrine is not applicable to this case because here 
the corporate organization is not questioned, but only the authority which the 
district asserts to establish a high school and levy taxes therefor. But we 
think, that though the statute may not in terms apply, in principle it is strictly 
applicable. The district claims and has long exercised powers which take it 
out of the class of ordinary school districts, and place it in another class alto- 
gether, whose organization is greatly different, and whose authority is much 
greater. So far as the externals of corporate action are concerned, the two 
classes are quite distinct, and the one subserves purposes of a higher order than 
the other, and is permitted to levy much greater burdens. It is not very 
clear that the case is not strictly within the law; for the organization here 
claimed is that of a union school district and nothing else, and it seems a little 
less than an absurdity to say it may be presumed from its user (use) of cor- 
porate powers to be a school district, but not such a district as the user (use) 
indicates and as it has for so long a period claimed to be. But however that 
may be, we are clear that if we might be allowed by the law to listen to the 
objection after the two years, we cannot, in reason, consent to do so after 
thirteen. It cannot be permitted that communities can be suffered to be an- 
noyed, embarrassed and unsettled by having agitated in the courts after such 
a lapse of time questions which every consideration of fairness to the people con- 
cerned and of public policy require should be raised and disposed of immediately 
or never raised at all. 

The more general question which the record presents we shall endeavor to 
state in our own language, but so as to make it stand out distinctly as a naked 
question of law, disconnected from all considerations of policy or expediency; 
in which light alone we are at liberty to consider it. It is, as we understand it, 
that there is no authority in this State to make the high schools free by taxa- 
tion levied on the people at large. The argument is that while there may be no 
constitutional provision expressly prohibiting such taxation, the general course 
of legislation in the State and the general understanding of the people have 
been such as to require us to regard the instruction in the classics and in living 
modern languages in these schools as in the nature not of practical and there- 
fore necessary instruction for the benefit of the people at large, but rather ac- 
compUshments for the few, to be sought after in the main by those best able 
to pay for them, and to be paid for by those who seek them, and not by a 
general tax. And not only has this been the general State policy, but this 
higher learning of itself, when supplied by the State, is so far a matter of pri- 
vate concern to those who receive it that the courts ought to declare it in- 
competent to supply it wholly at the pubUc expense. This is in substance, as 
we understand it, the position of the complainants in this suit. 

When this doctrine was broached to us, we must confess to no Uttle surprise 
that the legislation and policy of our State were appealed to against the 
right of the State to furnish a liberal education to the youth of the State 
in schools brought within the reach of all classes. We supposed that it 
had always been understood in this State that education, not merely in the 
rudiments, but in an enlarged sense, was regarded as an important practical 
advantage to be suppUed at their option to rich and poor ahke, and not as 
something pertaining merely to culture and accomphshment to be brought as 
such within the reach of those whose accumulated wealth enabled them to pay 
for it. As this, however, is not so seriously disputed it may be necessary 
perhaps to take a brief survey of the legislation and general course, not only of 
the State, but of the antecedent territory, on the subject. 

It is not disputed that the dissemination of knowledge by means of schools 
has been a prominent object from the first, and we allude to the Ordinance of 
1787 on the subject, and to the donation of lands by congress for the purpose, 
only as preliminary to what we may have to say regarding the action of the 
territorial authorities in the premises. Those authorities accepted in the most 
Uberal spirit the requirement that "schools and the means of education shall 
forever be encouraged," and endeavored to make early provision on a scale 
which shows they were fully up to the most advanced ideas that then pre- 



232 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

vailed on the subject. The earliest territorial legislation regarding education, 
though somewhat eccentric in form, was framed in this spirit. It was "An 
Act to establish the Catholepistemiad, or University of Michigania," adopted 
August 26, 1817, which not only incorporated the institution named in the 
title with its president and thirteen professors, appointed by the governor, but 
it provided that its board of instruction should have power "to regulate all the 
concerns of the institution, to enact laws for that purpose," "to establish col- 
leges, academies, schools, libraries, museums, atheneums, botanic gardens, 
laboratories and other useful literary and scientific institutions, consonant to 
the laws of the United States of America, and of Michigan, and to appoint 
officers, and instructors, and instructresses, in, among, and throughout the 
various counties, cities, towns, townships, and other geographical divisions 
of Michigan." To provide for the expenses thereof the existing public taxes 
were increased fifteen percent, and from the proceeds of all future taxes, fifteen 
percent was appropriated for the benefit of this corporation. (Territorial laws, 
vol. 2, p. 104; Shearman, School laws, p. 4) The act goes but little into details, 
as was to be expected of a law which proposed to put the whole educational 
system of the commonwealth into the hands and under the control of a body 
of learned men, created and made territorial officers for the purpose of planning 
and carrying it out; but the general purpose was apparent that throughout 
the territory a system of most liberal education should be supported at the 
public expense for the benefit of the whole people. The system indicated was 
prophetic of that which exists today, and is remarkable in this connection 
mainly, as being the very first law on the subject enacted in the territory, and 
as announcing a poUcy regarding liberal instruction which, though impracti- 
cable in view of the then limited and scattered population of the territory, has 
been steadily kept in view from that day to the present. 

This act continued in force until 1821, when it was repealed to make way 
for one "For the Estabhshment of an University," with more limited powers, 
and authorized only "to establish colleges, academies, and schools, depending 
upon the said university," and which, according to the general understanding 
at the time and afterwards, were to be schools intermediate between the uni- 
versity and such common schools as might exist or be provided for. (Code of 
1820, p. 443; code of 1827, p. 445) In 1827 the educational system was sup- 
plemented by an "act for the establishment of common schools." which is also 
worthy of special attention and reflection, as indicating what was understood 
at that day by the common schools which were proposed to be established. 

The first section of that act provided "that every township within this ter- 
ritory, containing fifty families or householders, shall be provided with a good 
schoolmaster, or schoolmasters, of good morals, to teach children to read and 
write, and to instruct them in the English or French language, as well as in 
arithmetic, orthography, and decent behavior, for such term of time as shall be 
equivalent to six months for one school in each year. And every township 
containing one hundred famihes, or householders shall be provided with such 
schoolmaster, or teacher, for such term of time as shall be equivalent to twelve 
months for one school in each year. And every township containing one 
hundred and fifty families, or householders, shall be provided with such school- 
master, or teacher, for such term of time as shall be equivalent to six months in 
each year, and shall, in addition thereto, be provided with a schoolmaster, or 
teacher, as above described, to instruct children in the English language for 
such term of time as shall be equivalent to twelve months for one school in 
each year. And every township containing two hundred families, or house- 
holders, shall be provided with a grammar schoolmaster, of good morals, well 
instructed in the Latin, French, and English languages, and shall in addition 
thereto, be provided with a schoolmaster, or teacher, as above described, to 
instruct children in the EngUsh language for such term of time as shall be 
equivalent to twelve months for each of said schools in each year." And 
the townships respectively were required under a heavy penalty, to be levied 
in case of default on the inhabitants generally, to keep and maintain the schools 
80 provided for. (Code of 1827, p. 448; Territorial laws, vol. 2, 472) 



Appendices 233 

Here, then, was a general law, which, under the name of common schools, 
required not only schools for elementary instruction, but also grammar schools 
to be maintained. The qualifications required in teachers of grammar schools 
were such as to leave it open to no doubt that grammar schools in the sense 
understood in England and in the Eastern states were intended, in which in- 
struction in the classics should be given, as well as in such higher branches of 
learning as would not usually be taught in the schools of lowest grades. How 
is it possible, then, to say, as the exigencies of the complainants' case require 
them to do, that the term common, or primary schools, as made use of in our 
legislation, has a known and definite meaning which limits it to the ordinary 
district schools, and that consequently the legislative authority to levy taxes 
for the primary schools cannot be held to embrace taxation for the schools 
supported by village and city districts in which a higher grade of learning is 
imparted. 

It is probable that this act, like that of 1817, was found in advance of the 
demands of the people of the territory, or of their ability to support high 
schools, and it was repealed in 1833, and another passed which did not ex- 
pressly require the establishment or support of schools of secondary grade, 
but which provided only for school directors, who must maintain a district 
school at least three months in each year. (Code of 1833, p. 129) The act 
contains no express limitations upon their powers, but it is not important now 
to consider whether or not they extended to the estabUshment of grammar 
schools as district schools, where, in their judgment, they might be required. 

Such schools would certainly not be out of harmony with any territorial 
policy that as yet has been developed or indicated. 

Thus stood the law when the Constitution of 1835 was adopted. The 
article on education in that instrument contained the following provisions: 

"2. The Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion 
of intellectual, scientifical, and agricultural improvement. The proceeds of all 
lands that have been, or hereafter may be granted by the United States to this 
State for the support of schools, which shall hereafter be sold or disposed of, shall 
be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest of which, together with the rents 
of all such unsold lands, shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of 
schools throughout the State. 

"3. The Legislature shall provide a system of common schools, by which 
a school shall be kept up and supported in each school district at least three 
months in every year; and any school district neglecting to keep up and 
support such a school may be deprived of its equal proportion of the interest 
of the public fund." 

The fifth section provided for the support of the University, "with such 
branches as the public convenience may hereafter demand for the promotion 
of literature, the arts, and sciences," etc. Two things are specially noticeable 
in these provisions: First, that they contemplated provision by the State for 
a complete system of instruction, beginning with that of the primary schools, 
and ending with that of the University ; Second, that while the Legislature was 
required to make provision for district schools for at least three months in 
each year, no restriction was imposed upon its power to establish schools inter- 
mediate to the common district school and the University, and we find nothing 
to indicate an interest to limit their discretion as to the class or grade of schools 
to which the proceeds of the school lands might be devoted, or as to the range 
of studies or grade of instruction which might be provided for in the district 
schools. 

In the very first executive message after the Constitution went into effect, 
the Governor, in view of the fact that "our institutions have leveled the arti- 
ficial distinctions existing in the societies of other countries, and have left open 
to every one the avenues to distinction and honor," admonished the Legislature 
that it was their " imperious duty to secure the same to the State by a general dif- 
fusion of knowledge," and that "this can in no wise be so certainly effected as 
by the perfect organization of a uniform and liberal system of common schools." 
Their "attention was therefore called to the effectuation of a perfect school 



234 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

system, open to all classes, as the surest basis of public happiness and pros- 
perity." In his second message, he repeated his admonitions, advising that 
provision be made for ample compensation of teachers, that those of the highest 
character, both moral and intellectual, might be secured, and urging that the 
"youth be taught the first principles in morals, in science, and in government, 
commencing their studies in the primary schools, elevating its grades as you 
approach the district seminary, and continue its progress till you arrive at the 
University." This message indicated no plan, but referred the Legislature to 
the report of the Superintendent, who would recommend a general system. 

The system reported by Superintendent Pierce contemplated a university, 
with branches in different parts of the State as preparatory schools, and dis- 
trict schools. This is the parent of our present system, and though its author 
did not find the Legislature prepared to accept all his views, the result has 
demonstrated that he was only a few years in advance of his generation, and 
that the changes in our school system, which have since been adopted, have 
been in the direction of the views which he then held and urged upon the 
public. And an examination of his official reports for 1837 will show that the 
free schools he then favored were schools which taught something more than 
the rudiments of a common education; which were to give to the poor the ad- 
vantages of the rich, and enable both alike to obtain within the State an educa- 
tion broad and liberal, as well as practical. 

It would be instructive to make hberal extracts from this report did time 
and space permit. The superintendent would have teachers thoroughly 
trained, and he would have the great object of common schools "to furnish 
good instruction in aU the elementary and common branches of knowledge, 
for all classes of community, as good indeed for the poorest boy in the State a^ the 
rich man can furnish for his children with all his wealth." The context shows 
that he had the systems of Prussia and New England in view, and that he pro- 
posed by free school system to fit the children of the poor as well as of the rich 
for the highest spheres of activity and influence. 

It might also be useful in this connection to show that the Prussian system 
and that "of the Puritans," of which he speaks in such terms of praise, re- 
semble in their main feature, so far as bringing within the reach of all a regular 
gradation of schools is concerned, the system of public instruction as it pre- 
vails in this State today. But it is not necessary for the purposes of the 
present case to enter upon this subject. It must suffice to say that the law 
of 1827, which provided for grammar schools as a grade of common schools, 
was adopted from laws which from a very early period had been in existence in 
Massachusetts, and which in hke manner, under heavy penalties, compelled 
the support of these grammar schools in every considerable town. (See Mass. 
Laws, 1789, p. 29; compare general statutes 1860, p. 215, sec. 2) 

The system adopted by the Legislature and which embraced a university 
and branches, and a common or primary school in every school district of the 
State was put into successful operation, and so continued, with one important 
exception, until the adoption of the Constitution of 1850. The exception 
relates to the branches of the University, which the funds of the University- 
did not warrant keeping up, and which were consequently abandoned. Pri- 
vate schools to some extent took their place ; but when the convention met to 
frame a constitution in 1850, there were already in existence in a number of 
the leading towns, schools belonging to the general public system, which were 
furnishing instruction which fitted young men for the University. 

These schools for the most part had been organized under special laws, which, 
while leaving the primary school laws in general appUcable, gave the districts a 
larger board of officers and larger powers of taxation for buildings and the pay- 
ment of teachers. As the estabhshment and support of such schools were 
optional with the people, they encountered in some locaUties considerable op- 
position, which, however, is beheved to have always been overcome, and the 
authority of the districts to provide instruction in the languages in these union 
schools was not, so far as we are aware, seriously contested. The superintend- 
ent of public instruction devotes a considerable proportion of his annual re- 



Appendices 235 

port for 1848 to these schools, and in that of 1849, he says: "This class of in- 
stitutions, which may be made to constitute a connecting hnk between the 
ordinary common school and the State University, is fast gaining upon the 
confidence of the public. Those already estabUshed have generally surpassed 
the expectations of their founders. Some of them have already attained a 
standing rarely equalled by the academical institutions of the older states. 
Large, commodious, and beautiful edifices have been erected in quite a number 
of villages for the accommodation of these schools. These schoolhouses fre- 
quently occupy the most eligible sites in the villages where they are located. 
I am happy in being able to state in this connection that the late capitol of our 
State, having been fitted up at much expense was, in June last, opened as a 
common schoolhouse; and in that house is maintained a free school which 
constitutes the pride and ornament of the City of the Straits." This common 
free school was a union school, equivalent in its instruction to the ordinary 
high school in most matters, and the report furnishes very clear evidence that 
the superintendent believed schools of that grade to be entirely competent 
under the primary school law. 

It now becomes important to see whether the Constitutional Convention 
and the people, in 1850, did anything to undo what previously had been ac- 
compUshed towards furnishing high schools as a part of the primary school 
system. The Convention certainly did nothing to that end. On the contrary 
they demonstrated in the most unmistakeable manner that they cherished no 
such desire or purpose. The article on Education, as originally reported, 
while providing for free schools to be kept in each district at least three months 
in every year, added that the "the English language and no other shall be 
taught in such schools." Attention was called to this provision, and it was 
amended so as to read that instruction should be "conducted in the English 
language." The reason for the change was fully given, that as it was reported 
it might be understood to prohibit the teaching of other languages than the 
Enghsh in the primary schools a result that was not desired. Judge Whipple 
stated in the Convention that, in the section from which he came, French and 
German were taught, and "it is a most valuable improvement of the common 
school system." The late Superintendent Pierce said that in some schools 
Latin was taught, and that he himself had taught Latin in a common school. 
He would not adopt any provision by which any knowledge would be excluded. 
"All that we ought to do is this: we should say the Legislature shall estabUsh 
primary schools." This, in his opinion, would give full power, and the details 
could be left to legislation. (See debates of Convention, 269, 549) 

The instrument submitted by the Convention to the people, and adopted 
by them, provided for the establishment of free schools in every school dis- 
trict for at least three months in each year, and for the University. By the 
aid of these we have every reason to believe the people expected a complete 
collegiate education might be obtained. The branches of the University had 
ceased to exist; the University had no preparatory department, and it must 
either have been understood that young men were to be prepared for the 
University in the common schools, or else that they should go abroad for the 
purpose, or be prepared in private schools. Private schools adapted to the 
purpose were almost unknown in the State, and comparatively, a very few 
persons were at that time of suflBcient pecuniary abiUty to educate their chil- 
dren abroad. The inference seems irresistible that the people expected the 
tendency towards the estabhshment of high schools in the primary school 
districts would continue until every locality capable of supporting one was 
supplied. And this inference is strengthened by the fact that a considerable 
number of our union schools date their establishment from the year 1850 and 
the two or three years following. 

If these facts do not demonstrate clearly and conclusively a general State 
policy, beginning in 1817 and continuing until after the adoption of the present 
Constitution, in the direction of free schools in which education, and at their 
option the elements of a classical education, might be brought within the 
reach of all the children of all the State, then, as it seems to us, nothing can 



236 Development of Free Schools in the United States 

demonstrate it. We might follow the subject further and show that the sub- 
sequent legislation has all concurred with this poUcy, but it would be a waste 
of time and labor. We content ourselves with the statement that neither in 
our State policy, in our Constitution, or in our laws, do we find the primary 
school districts restricted in the branches of knowledge which their officers 
may cause to be taught, or the grade of instruction that may be given, if their 
voters consent in regular form to bear the expense and raise the taxes for the 
purpose. 

Having reached this conclusion, we shall spend no time upon the objection 
that the district in question had no authority to appoint a superintendent of 
schools, and that the duties of superin tendency should be performed by the dis- 
trict board. We think the power to make the appointment was incident to 
the full control which by law the board had over the schools of the district, and 
that the board and the people of the district have been wisely left by the Legis- 
lature to follow their own judgment in the premises. 

It follows that the decree dismissing the bill was right, and should be affirmed. 

The other justices concurred. July 21, 1874. (30 Michigan 69. Smith, 
50-55) 






'-^ a 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 116 630 9 



V ^J'^'^'jo^ Vii&ii 



